«ffl^Mi^^5wT^^45?ft!^ ■ *^ B'^fSrSt !;|'!ii'''t'i^iiii''::':V^'->' fi; ;'.''^-l; ■ i'v 



i / 



r- 



CONl^ECTICUT 



AS A 

7^^ 



CORPORATE COLONY *-*f 



NELSON PRENTISS MEAD 



DISSERTATION 

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements fob 

THE Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty 

OF Political Science in Columbia University 



PHESS OF 

TKE NE» EDA PRINTIIIG COHPAIt 
lAKUSTEa. fK 

1906 



<- 



Gift 
Author 
(Person) 

f2Ap'06 



f ^' 



CONTENTS. 
INTRODUCTION. 

Continuity of the history of Connecticut 1 

English colonization the result of private initiative 2 

The proprietary and corporate types of colonial agencies. . . 2 

The royal type a later development 3 

Characteristics of the proprietary and royal types; the 

democratic and prerogative elements 3 

Characteristics of the corporate type ; purely democratic . . 4 

Grouping of colonial types 5 

The three corporate colonies ; their essential identity in form 5 
The founders of Connecticut created a de-facto corporate 

colony by conscious imitation of Massachusetts 6 

The royal charter confirmed an existing government 6 

Plan of work ; first to consider Connecticut as a type of the 

corporate colony, and second to consider Connecticut in 

its relations to the home government 6 

CHAPTER I. 

ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 

The General Court 7 

Organization 7 

The Massachusetts commission 7 

The ''Corte" before 1639 7 

The Court as organized by the Fundamental Orders 8 

Special manner of organization 9 

Changes made by the charter 11 

Separation of the two houses 12 

Meetings alternate between Hartford and New 

Haven 13 

Powers 13 

Powers of the Massachusetts commission 13 

Powers of the General Court before 1639 14 

Erroneous idea of the independence of the towns. . 14 

Powers granted by the Fundamental Orders 14 

iii 



IV CONTENTS. 

The broad extent of these powers 15 

The General Court the "supreme power of the 

Commonwealth" 15 

No Bill of Rights 15 

Varied character of legislation 16 

Much special legislation 16 

Powers of the General Court in administration. . . 16 
The General Court retains control of nearly all 

branches of administration 17 

Quarrel between the two houses over the power of 

appointment 18 

The royal charter made no material change in the 

powers of the General Court 20 

The charter not fundamental 20 

Powers of the General Court not changed during 

the eighteenth century 21 

Governor 21 

No distinct executive authority before 1639 21 

Office of governor provided in the Fundamental 

Orders 21 

Qualifications 22 

Powers 22 

Summoned the General Court, but could not 

adjourn or dissolve it 22 

Presided over the meetings of the General 

Court 22 

Had no veto power 22 

Had few administrative powers 23 

Powers as provided by the charter 23 

The governor's message 23 

The governor's influence in the government 

depended upon his personality 24 

Council 24 

The "particular court" 24 

The council first provided by the charter 24 

Frequent restatement of the council 25 

Fear of a "standing" council 26 

Powers of the council 26 

Control of the council by the General Court 27 



CONTENTS. V 

Absence of council records during the eighteenth 

century 27 

CHAPTER II. 

FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 

Scope of the chapter 28 

Sources op revenue 28 

Direct taxes 29 

Land tax 29 

Land assessed according to probable revenue 29 

Classification of land 29 

General property tax 29 

Poll tax 30 

Income or faculty tax 30 

Crude manner of levying the income tax 31 

Exemptions from taxation 31 

Indirect taxes 32 

Excises 32 

Customs duties 32 

A primitive protective tariff 33 

Tonnage duties 34 

Collection of revenue 35 

The treasurer 35 

The constable 35 

Early manner of levying taxes 35 

Inequalities of the system 35 

The Grand List 36 

"Fourfold" assessments 36 

The listers and inspectors of lists 36 

Excise and customs officers 37 

Expenses 37 

Provisions for defence 37 

Salaries and pensions of soldiers 38 

Military supplies 38 

Forts and fortifications 38 

Coast defence vessels 39 

Large military expenses due to the inter- 
colonial wars -. 39 



VI CONTENTS. 

Salaries of officials 39 

Small and irregular 39 

Fear of stated salaries 40 

Fees more important than salaries 40 

Extra compensation and pensions 41 

Expenses of colonial agents 41 

Provisions for education 41 

Provisions for the protection of the natives 42 

Appropriations 42 

Special appropriations for each expense 42 

Controlled by the General Court 42 

Auditing committees 42 

Currency 42 

Lack of a medium of exchange 42 

Use of wampum 42 

Use of commodities 43 

Foreign coins 44 

Pine tree currency 44 

Variety of currencies in use 44 

Act of Parliament regulating foreign coins 45 

"Proclamation" money 46 

Paper currency 46 

First appearance in New England 46 

First appearance in Connecticut 46 

Frequent emissions 48 

Efforts to encourage the circulation of the bills. ... 48 

Counterfeiting and mutilation of the bills 49 

Made legal tender 50 

The New London Society emits bills of credit 51 

Action of the colonial authorities in regard to them 51 

A Connecticut land bank 52 

"New Tenor" bills 53 

Great depreciation of bills 55 

Sinking of the paper currency 56 

Issuance of interest-bearing notes 57 

A further resort to fiat currency 58 



CONTENTS. Vll 

CHAPTER III. 
LAND SYSTEM. 

CO 

Title to land •'^ 

Title based upon possession and purchase from the 

CO 

natives ^^ 

Restriction of the right to purchase from the Indians. . 59 

Title confirmed by the royal charter 60 

Colonial grants "-^ 

The power to grant lands before 1639 61 

The power granted to the General Court by the Funda- 
mental Orders 61 

Two kinds of grants (a) to individuals, (&) to groups 

of individuals 61 

Individual grants more common in the seventeenth cen- 
tury ^^ 

Grants to groups of individuals more important 61 

Purpose of such grants 61 

Activity of the General Court in settling new towns. . . 62 
The relation of the General Court to the administration 
of the public domain the same as in the other cor- 
porate colonies 62 

Town and proprietary grants 63 

Variety of treatment in the different towns 63 

In the older towns the land was regulated in the town 

meeting "4 

Distinction between proprietors and other inhabitants 

toward the end of the seventeenth century 65 

Contests between the commoners and non-commoners in 

the different towns ^^ 

Attitude of the General Court 66 

Consideration of the New London petitions 67 

Victory for the proprietors 68 

Organization of the proprietors 68 

Administration of land in the towns of the eighteenth 

century 69 

Division and sale of the "Western Lands" 70 

Appearance of land speculators and absentee proprietors 72 

Division of land *^ 

Character of land '^^ 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

Laying out of the town plot and the assignment of 

home lots 75 

Basis of division in the older towns 75 

Individual grants 76 

Common fields, fences and herds 77 

Town commons 77 

Restrictions upon alienation of land 78 

Basis of division of land in the later towns 79 

Common fields and herds less frequent in the later 

towns 79 

CHAPTER IV. 

MILITARY AFFAIRS. 

Administration of the militia 80 

Powers of the Massachusetts Commission 80 

Powers of the Court before 1639 80 

Powers conferred on the General Court by the Funda- 
mental Orders 80 

Provisions in the charter 80 

Councils of war 81 

Council controlled by the General Court 82 

Contest over the control of the militia 82 

Militia placed under the command of the governor of 

New York 83 

Visit of Fletcher to Hartford 83 

Colony retains control of its militia 84 

Organization of the militia 85 

Militia system based upon the assize of arms 85 

Trained bands 86 

Troopers 87 

Officers 88 

Duties of the clerk 88 

Regimenting of the militia 88 

Trainings 90 

Forts and fortifications 91 

Forts at Saybrook and New London 91 

Unsubstantial character of the fortifications 91 

Fortified houses 93 



contents. ix 

Colonial "navy" ^"^ 

The sloop Defence 94 

The brigantine Tartar 94 

Indian wars of the seventeenth century 94 

The Pequot war 94 

Murder of Captain Stone 95 

Murder of John Oldham 95 

Expedition of John Endicott 95 

The force under Major Mason 96 

Capture of the Pequot "fort" 97 

Dispersal of the Pequots 97 

Significance of the struggle 98 

Trouble with the River Indians and the Narragansett 

tribes 99 

Capture and death of Miantinomo 99 

Philip 's war 101 

Comparison with the earlier struggles 101 

Outbreak of the war 101 

Local struggle around Mount Hope peninsula 102 

Escape of Philip to central Massachusetts 102 

Defence of the upper river towns by Connecticut. . 102 
Friction between the Connecticut and Massachu- 
setts troops 102 

Expedition into the Narragansett country in the 

winter of 1675 103 

Second expedition into the Narragansett country. . 104 

Close of the struggle and its significance 104 

Intercolonial wars 103 

Comparison between the intercolonial wars and the 

earlier Indian wars lOo 

Favorable geographical situation of Connecticut 106 

First Intercolonial war 106 

Connecticut troops sent to New York and Albany. . 106 

Campaign of 1690 against Canada 107 

Its failure 107 

Trouble between Leisler and Fitz John Winthrop . . 107 

Expenses of Connecticut in the war 108 

Second intercolonial war 108 



CONTENTS. 

Friction between the Connecticut authorities and 

the governors of New York and Massachusetts. . 108 

Unsuccessful expedition against Canada in 1709. . 109 

Capture of Port Royal 1710 110 

Disastrous expedition of 1711 110 

Close of the war 110 

War with the eastern Indians Ill 

Aid sent by Connecticut Ill 

Third intercolonial war Ill 

The abortive expedition to the Spanish main Ill 

Capture of Louisburg 112 

Close of the struggle 113 

Fourth intercolonial war 113 

Appointment of commanders-in-chief of the col- 
onial forces 113 

Expedition against Crown Point 114 

Incapacity of Loudoun and Abercrombie 115 

Campaign of 1759 and the fall of Quebec 116 

Completion of the conquest of Canada 116 

Troops furnished for garrison purposes 116 

Connecticut troops in Pontiac's war 117 



^ INTRODUCTION. 

The central fact in the constitutional development of 
Connecticut is its continuity. Any division of its colonial 
history into periods must be largely arbitrary. From the 
founding of the colony until its separation from the 
mother country, a period of nearly one hundred and 
fifty years, the institutional development of the colony 
was a steady and natural growth. True, there was the 
Andros regime, but this was merely a brief hiatus in the 
colony's history, and its effect upon Connecticut institu- 
tions was practically nil. As a type of the New England 
corporate colony, therefore, Connecticut possesses certain 
advantages over its prototype Massachusetts. The prog- 
ress of the latter in the evolution of a Commonwealth was 
seriously hampered, if not cut short, by the substitution 
of the provincial charter of 1691 for the old corporate 
charter. Connecticut, on the other hand, was allowed to 
complete its colonial development largely independent of 
external control. It would probably be an error to say 
that Connecticut was in no way affected by the changing 
attitude of the authorities in England in relation to 
colonial matters. The growth of imperial control, and 
the formation of more intimate relations between the 
home government and the American colonies, which was 
a feature of the English colonial policy during the latter 
part of the seventeenth and of the eighteenth centuries, 
unquestionably had its influence upon the internal de- 
velopment of the colony. Probably many ventures were 
abandoned, and others not entered upon, because of the 
fear of the interference from England. The colony lead- 
ers had an ever present example in Massachusetts of 

1 



2 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

what too strenuous opposition to Imperial control was 
liable to result in, and they probably deemed it wiser to 
bend than be broken. But this does not alter the essen- 
tial fact that Connecticut presents the spectacle of a self- 
centered corporate colony, which, throughout its colonial 
history, shaped its own institutions in its own way. That 
this was done generally with wise conservatism, was due 
in a large measure to the sagacity and good sense of the 
colonists, and to the ability of the leaders who were called 
to direct the affairs of state. 

Connecticut has been referred to as a type of the New 
England corporate colony. A word needs to be said as 
to the chief characteristics of this type of colonial gov- 
ernment. English colonization during the seventeenth 
century was the result of private initiative. The English 
Crown was not directly a colonizing agency. It might, 
and it did, encourage colonization, by making large grants 
of territory, and by bestowing trade privileges and sub- 
ordinate rights of government, but the Sovereign was 
slow to embark upon adventures involving considerable 
financial outlay, with no great certainty of success. Such 
exploits were left to more enterprising individuals. If 
they succeeded, it would redound to the honor and pos- 
sible profit of the Crown ; if they failed the Sovereign was 
not the loser. 

Individual effort in colonization found expression in 
two types of colonial agencies, the proprietorship, and 
the corporate colony. It was only when colonization had 
passed beyond the experimental stage, and the possibili- 
ties of profitable exploitation of the colonies had become 
manifest, that the King took a direct interest in and con- 
trol of colonization. Such control implied the metamor- 
phosing of the two earlier types of colonial government 
into a new type, which would bring the colonies into 



INTRODUCTIOlSr. 6 

closer relations with the mother country. This transi- 
tion introduced the third type, that of the royal province. 
Viewed then from the standpoint of imperial control, the 
three types of colonial government would be grouped, the 
corporate and proprietary on the one hand, and the royal 
on the other. 

But there is another way of looking at the colonies, 
namely, from the standpoint of their internal organiza- 
tion, leaving out of sight entirely, their relations with 
the Home government. From this point of view, as will 
be seen, a different grouping of the three types is neces- 
sary. 

The proprietorship was the earliest type of colonial 
agency. The granting of large tracts of unsettled terri- 
tory was a convenient and inexpensive method of re- 
warding favorite courtiers or needy nobles. In making 
such grants the fief was selected as the form of grant, 
while in conferring subordinate rights of government, the 
powers of the Counts palatine were selected as a model. ^ 
This implied conferring upon the Proprietor semi-regal 
powers; he, or they, became the head and source of all 
governmental authority in the province. In essence the 
government of the proprietary province was monarchical. 
But in time there came to exist in all the proprietary 
governments, generally by concession of the proprietors, 
a democratic element. This was represented by the 
lower, the elected, branch of the legislature. Conflict was 
almost certain to develop between the monarchic element 
in the government, represented by the Proprietor or his 
deputies, and the democratic element in the legislature. 
This conflict is the central thread in the constitutional- 
development of the proprietary provinces. What has 

^ Osgood, Proprietary Province as a Form of Colonial Government, 
Am. Hist. Review, 1897. 



4 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

been said of the internal organization of the proprietary 
provinces, is equally true of the royal type, the King 
merely taking the place of the individual proprietor. If 
any distinction is to be drawn between the two types, it 
would be that, owing largely to the more exalted and 
powerful position of the King, the prerogative element in 
the royal provinces was stronger than in the proprietary 
provinces. In a broad sense the internal organization 
of the two types was the same; neither was self-con- 
sistent, both contained elements which were discordant, 
and harmony could be restored only by the elimination 
of the democratic or the prerogative element of the sys- 
tem. As events proved, the latter was destined to give 
away. 

When we come to examine the internal organization of 
the corporate type, a marked difference appears. As the 
fief and the palatinate were the models upon which the 
proprietary grants were made, so the trading corporation 
was the pattern for the corporate type. This implied 
the centering of authority in a ''General Court" com- 
posed of all members of the company, or all freemen of 
the colony when the company and colony became one. 
By this Court were chosen all the officials of the colony, 
and from it radiated all the various functions of govern- 
ment. It became the very heart of the colony's political 
body. In this type of colony, the immediate source of 
authority was the colonists themselves, not the King nor 
the proprietor. From the first, the democratic element 
was supreme, the monarchic element entirely lacking. 
There was then, nothing inherent in the internal structure 
of the corporate colonies, which would lead to such a con- 
flict as has been indicated was inevitable in the royal and 
proprietary provinces. It was an easy and natural 
transition from the type of corporate colony, to the dem- 



INTRODUCTION. O 

ocratic commonwealth. No material change was needed 
to fit these colonies into their new places in the American 
nation. Nothing more clearly shows this than the fact 
that the only two corporate colonies, Connecticut and 
Rhode Island, which remained such throughout the colo- 
nial period, retained their old corporate charters, as com- 
monwealth constitutions, one for more than forty years, 
and the other for more than sixty years, after the sepa- 
ration of the colonies from England.^ 

From the standpoint of internal organization, then, the 
three types of colonial government would be grouped; 
the royal and proprietary provinces on the one hand, and 
the corporate colonies on the other. 

Of the three American colonies which are included in 
the corporate type, ^ one, Massachusetts, was founded by 
a corporation created in England, while two, Connecticut 
and Rhode Island, were formed by the creation of a cor- 
poration in the colony. The three, however, became 
identical in form, through the removal of the Massachu- 
setts corporation into New England, and its identification 
with the colony. 

During the first twenty-five years of the history of Con- 
necticut, the colonists lived under a de facto government 
formed by the voluntary compact of the settlers. While 
they lacked the guarantees of a royal charter, they were 
also free from its restrictions. The colonists might, if 
they chose, have struck out along lines radically new. 
But this was not done. The founders of Connecticut were 

^Connecticut retained her charter as a state constitution until 1818, 
" Rhode Island until 1842. 

2 Virginia though founded by a trading company did not attain the char- 
acteristics of a corporate colony, as the London Company did not remove 
to Virginia and become merged with the colony. The two colonies of 
Plymouth and New Haven, while they developed the internal structure of 
corporate colonies, never received royal charters and in time became ab- 
sorbed, one by Massachusetts and the other by Connecticut. 



6 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOEATE COLONY. 

Puritans to the core. Most of them had lived in the 
Massachusetts colony for a greater or less period of time, 
and were in general sympathy with the principles and 
ideals of that colony. Nothing was more natural than 
that they should reproduce in their new homes a gov- 
ernment similar in outline, if not in detail, to that of the 
Bay Colony. That this was done, becomes apparent from 
an examination of the records. In consequence, Con- 
necticut formed by conscious imitation of Massachusetts, 
a government embodying all the essentials of a corporate 
colony. Nothing was lacking but a royal charter to make 
the de facto government de jure, and when through the 
ability of John Winthrop, the younger, and the gen- 
erosity of Charles II, such a charter was obtained, it 
merely confirmed an already existing condition of affairs. 
It is the purpose of this study to trace out in consider- 
able detail, the internal development of Connecticut as a 
type of the corporate colony. Emphasis will naturally 
be laid upon constitutional questions ; economic and social 
considerations only being touched upon as they affected, 
or were affected by the constitutional development of the 
colony. Secondly an attempt will be made to consider 
Connecticut as a part of the British Empire; to show 
how her position was, from the standpoint of imperial 
control, an anomalous one; how the English administra- 
tors tried to bring the colony into closer and more har- 
monious relations with the home government, involving 
several attacks upon the charter, and finally, how the 
colony was enabled to avert these attacks and preserve 
its institutions intact throughout the colonial period. 



CHAPTER L 

Organs of Legislation and Administration. 

The constitutional liistory of Connecticut begins with 
the removal from Massachusetts in 1636-37 of the three 
river towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield.^ 
After residing in the bay colony for a number of years, 
the inhabitants of these towns, for a variety of reasons,^ 
sought new homes on the banks of the Connecticut. In 
granting permission to remove, the General Court of 
Massachusetts appointed a commission of eight of the 
prospective settlers, to order the affairs of the new settle- 
ments, for a period of one year.^ No attempt was made 
by the parent colony, after the towns had left her juris- 
diction, to exercise any manner of control over them. 
There is no evidence that the commission was account- 
able in any way for its acts to the authorities of Massa- 
chusetts. On May 11th, 1637, at the end of the year for 
which the commissioners were chosen, there met at Hart- 
ford the first "Genrall Corte" of the infant colony. 
This Court was probably summoned by the retiring com- 
mission, as this was one of their specified powers. The 
new body consisted of six Magistrates, four of them 
members of the old Commission, and nine Deputies 
elected by the towns, the three from each town being 
known as its '^comitee.'" The records do not indicate 
the manner in which the Magistrates were chosen, but 

'The three towns while in Massachusetts and for a year after their 
removal were called respectively, Newtown, Dorchester and Watertown. 
^ Osgood, American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, I, 301. 
»Mass. Col. Rec, I, 170. 
♦ Conn. Col. Rec, 1, 9. 



8 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPOKATE COLONY. 

from a contemporary authority we learn that they were 
elected by the Deputies.^ In this form the General Court 
continued until the formation of the famous "Funda- 
mental Orders" in 1639. 

In this "First Written Constitution" it was provided 
that there should be a General Court, which should meet 
in two stated sessions annually, and at such other times 
as was deemed necessary. The spring session of the 
General Court, known as the Court of Election, consisted 
of all the freemen that wished to attend, and at this Court 
were elected the Governor and Magistrates, and such other 
oflBcers as were from time to time provided. When the 
elections had been completed, the Court organized for 
legislation, and consisted simply of a Governor, at least 
six Magistrates, and Deputies from the towns.^ The fall 
meeting, and such others as were from time to time sum- 
moned by the Governor, were similarly organized. The 
quorum of the Court when organized for legislation, was 
fixed at at least four Magistrates, with the Governor or 
a moderator, and a major part of the Deputies. 

The composition of the Court of Election as a primary 
electoral body, was soon changed. The spread of settle- 
ments had made a general meeting of the freemen incon- 
venient, and the practice of sending the votes of the free- 
men to the Court of Election by the Deputies of the towns 
was early adopted.^ With this adoption of proxy voting 
the distinction between the composition of the Court of 
Election and the ordinary sessions of the General Court, 
practically disappeared.* 

1 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., I, 13. 

2 The constitution fixed the number of Deputies at four from the towns 
of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield and for such other towns as were 
later admitted " as many as the Corte shall judge meete." 

» Conn. Col. Rec, I, 346. 

* Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies, Columbia Univ. 
Studies, III, 139. 



ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 9 

The constitution specified in detail the manner in which 
the Governor, Magistrates and Deputies were to be 
chosen. The ballot was used in all elections. All persons 
chosen to the Magistracy were required to be freemen 
of the colony, and to have been formerly nominated in 
some General Court by the Deputies or the Court as a 
whole. In the election of Governor and Magistrates, the 
person receiving the greatest number of votes was chosen 
Governor; then the name of each person that had been 
placed in nomination was voted upon separately, and all 
those that received a greater number of affirmative than 
negative votes, were chosen Magistrates, provided at 
least six were so chosen. 

The Deputies were chosen before each session of the 
General Court by the admitted inhabitants of the towns, 
at town meetings summoned for the purpose by the con- 
stables. 

The constitution also provided a special manner for 
organizing the General Court. In case the Governor and 
Magistrates should fail to summon the two stated ses- 
sions, and at such other times as the "occations of the 
Commonwealth require," the freemen were empowered 
to do so. Such a Court should consist of a majority of 
the freemen, or their deputies, presided over by a Mod- 
erator chosen by the freemen.^ 

The constitution seems to distinguish two bodies of 
electors. Only such as were "admitted freemen" could 
take part in the choice of the Governor and Magistrates 
at the Court of Election. On the other hand, all "ad- 
mitted inhabitants" of the towns had a voice in the 

^ This provision, which was never put in practice, was an expression of 
the democratic sentiments of the founders of Connecticut. It was probably 
suggested by the controversy which was carried on in the early years of 
the Massachusetts colony over the unlimited power of the Magistrates, 
Osgood, American Colonies, I, 157. 



10 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPOKATE COLONY. 

choice of deputies.^ This distinction, however, if it was 
ever clearly recognized, in time disappeared.^ 

The Magistrates and Deputies sat and voted as one 
body, and the latter which at first was double the number 
of the former, and growing larger with the admission of 
each new town, might if they saw fit, exert a preponder- 
ating control over legislation.^ This condition of affairs 
continued until 1645, when the Magistrates were given 
the negative voice, although they continued to sit with 
the Deputies in one house, until the end of the seventeenth 
century.* 

The General Court, as organized by the Fundamental 
Orders, continued with but slight change until the grant- 
ing of the Eoyal Charter. The quorum of the Assistants 

1 Col. Rec, I, 21, 23. 

2 The admission of freemen was one of the functions of the General 
Court. At first any person of proper age and " peaceable conversation " 
might be admitted. In 1659 it was provided that only persons twenty-one 
years of age, having a personal estate of 30 pounds, or those who had held 
some office in the commonwealth might be admitted. Two years before 
the same qualifications were required for " admitted inhabitants." In 
1675 the property qualification was fixed at ten pounds estate in land, and 
in 1689 at forty shillings. In the same year the power of admitting free- 
men was given to the local authorities. Any person possessing a freehold 
estate to the value of forty shillings, upon presentation of a certificate to 
that effect from the selectmen of the town where he resided should be 
enrolled as a freeman without any action on the part of the Court. With 
this act the distinction between freemen and admitted inhabitants dis- 
appears. Col. Rec, I, 293, 331; II, 253; IV, 11; VII, 259. 

The proportion of freemen to the total male population of voting age 
is difficult to ascertain, but it was probably a small proportion. From the 
formation of the Constitution to the granting of the charter, a period of 
more than twenty years, there are on record but 229 names of persons 
admitted as freemen. In 1669 the total number of freemen was one thou- 
sand seven hundred and eighty-nine out of a population of three thousand 
males capable of bearing arms. In 1740 in a warmly contested election 
there were four thousand votes cast while the male population of military 
age was about fifteen thousand. Col. Rec, II, 518; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 
262; Douglass Summary, II, 179. 

' The number of Magistrates gradually increased from six to twelve. 

«Col. Rec, I, 119. 



OKGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 11 

in general Court was reduced in 1644 from four to three. ^ 
In 1646 the General Court changed the time of holding 
the Court of Election, from April to May.^ In 1654 it 
was provided that in the absence of the Governor and 
Deputy Governor, a major part of the Magistrates might 
summon a meeting of the Court, which should be pre- 
sided over by a Moderator, chosen by the members of the 
Court.^ In 1661 the General Court suggested to the free- 
men that the number of deputies be reduced one half, 
but no action was taken upon the proposition.^ 

The Eoyal Charter, issued in 1662, made some minor 
changes in the organization of the General Court. The 
number of Magistrates, which had grown from six to 
twelve, was fixed at the latter number. On the other 
hand, the number of deputies was restricted to two from 
each town.^ The Charter contemplated the choice of the 
Governor, Magistrates and other officers, at a general 
meeting of the freemen. This, as we have seen, had also 
been provided in the Fundamental Orders; but the con- 
venient method of voting by proxy which had been 
adopted, was continued despite the provisions of the 
Charter. The changes in the organization of the General 
Court subsequent to the granting of the Charter were, 
with one or two exceptions, of but slight importance. 

In 1689 a change was made in the manner of nominat- 
ing the Governor, Deputy Governor and Assistants, 
whereby the nominations were made directly by the free- 
men.^ This provision lasted but three years, when the 

^Ihid., I, 119. 

='/6id., I, 140. 

^Ihid., I, 25G. 

*IUd., I, »72. 

" Poore's Charters and Constitutions, I, 253 et seq. Col. Rec, II, 1. 

6 Col. Rec, IV, 12. 



12 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

former method of nomination by the General Court was 
restored.^ Five years later the method of direct nomina- 
tion was again resorted to.^ In 1698 The General Court 
obtained the form it was destined to maintain throughout 
the colonial era. It will be remembered that while the 
Magistrates had been given the negative voice in 1645, 
they had continued to sit with the Deputies as a uni- 
cameral legislature. In 1698, however, the two houses 
were separated.^ The Upper House, now often called 
the Council,^ consisted of the Governor, Deputy Gover- 
nor, and the Assistants. The Lower House consisted of 
the deputies from the towns, who were empowered to 
choose a speaker to preside over their deliberations, to 
appoint all needful officers, and to make all necessary 
rules for carrying on the business of the house. To each 

i/6id., IV, 81. 

2 Ibid., IV, 223. These changes were the result of a controversy be- 
tween the " aristocratic " and democratic parties in the colony. Samuel 
Willis in several letters to Fitz John Winthrop throws some light on these 
controversies. Willis was identified with the colonial aristocracy of the 
time which felt that the democratic spirit was becoming too strong in the 
colony. He suggested that a modification of the charter be obtained from 
the King so that " persons of mean and low degree be not improved in 
the chiefest place of civill and military affairs . . . but that persons of 
parintage, education, abilitye, and integrity be settled in such offices." At 
another time he writes : " Mr. Henry Woolcott and younge Mr. Chester both 
secluded the Houses of Comons the last sessions in Octbr, and an eminent 
syder-drinker in the roome of one and a person risen out of obscurity in 
the place of the other." Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 6th Series, III, 17, 31. 

3 The separation of the two houses was another movement on the part 
of the colonial aristocracy. Willis in writing to Winthrop said, — " There 
are two things effected since your Honr came to the Governmnt wch I 
judge will much conduce to the wellfaire of the Colony if they be con- 
tinued: That the Magistrates and Deputies sitt distinct & that the justices 
be stated and comissioned and not annually chosen, wch will much 
strengthen the Governmt, when they are not at the despose of the arbitrary 
humors of the people, and yet subject to be called to accompt by the 
General Court or to be displaced for delinquency." Mass. Hist. Col., 6th 
Series, III, 44. 

* Not to be confused with the Governor's Council. 



ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 13 

house was granted the negative voice/ and a parity of 
powers in legislation.^ 

Throughout the seventeenth century, the meetings of the 
General Court had been held regularly at Hartford.^ In 
1701 it was provided that the October session of the 
Court should be held at New Haven, the spring session 
continuing at Hartford.^ Ten years later this arrange- 
ment was discontinued, only to be reestablished the fol- 
lowing year,° and in this form it continued throughout 
the colonial period. 

The powers of the commission which controlled the 
affairs of the three river towns during the first year after 
their migration, were stated in the law creating it. It 
was empowered to administer justice, and to make such 
orders ''for the peaceable and quiett ordering the 
affaires" of the plantations, in the granting of lots, reg- 
ulating trade, military discipline and defensive war. It 
was also empowered to summon the inhabitants together 
as a Court. ^ From the records it is apparent that the 
commissioners exercised most of the functions conferred 
upon them. They regulated trade with the Indians, 
swore in constables for the towns, provided for the main- 
tenance of military watches and trainings, gave names to 
the towns, ratified certain church proceedings, and per- 
formed the duties of a court of justice and probate.' 

The Powers of the General Court which displaced the 
Commission are not set forth in any law or order, but it 

1 Col. Rec, IV, 282. 

^ I can find no warrant in the records for the statement that the 
Deputies alone could initiate legislation granting money. Jones, History 
of Taxation in Connecticut, J. H. U. 8., XIV, 375. 

» Except during the first year of the colony's history when the meetings 
alternated among the three towns. Col. Rec, I, 1, 2, 3. 

* Col. Rec, IV, 343. 

5 Col. Rec, V, 328, 381. 

6 Mass. Col. Rec, I, 170. 

7 Conn. Col. Rec, I, 1-9, 



14 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

assumed and exercised a still wider control over the 
towns, than had the Commission. Its first act was a 
declaration of war against the Pequot Indians. It fixed 
the quota of men and supplies to be furnished by each 
town ; it levied a tax upon the towns, and chose a treas- 
urer to collect it. In short this General Court was, in all 
essential points, a reproduction of its Massachusetts 
prototype. There is no evidence in the records that the 
towns bore any different relation to the General Court, 
than was the case in the Bay colony. The theory, which 
has been advocated by several writers of Connecticut 
history, that Connecticut was founded by a federal union 
of three independent towns, with residuary powers of 
government in the localities appears to be entirely erron- 
eous.^ 

AVhen in 1639 the people of Connecticut organized their 
government on a more permanent basis, the powers of 
the General Court were more definitely specified. It was 
stated that in the General Court should reside "the su- 
preme power of the Commonwealth ' ' to make and repeal 
laws, admit freemen, dispose of the public land, inflict 
punishments for crimes and misdemeanors, and ''deale 
in any other matter that concerns the good of this com- 
onwelth, " except the election of Magistrates, which 
was done by the whole body of freemen.^ The power thus 
conferred, or that which the legislature assumed, was 
much greater than at the present day is thought safe or 

^ Johnston, Connecticut, a Study of a Commonwealth Democracy, 61. 
For a full and clear examination of this question see Andrews, Three 
River Towns of Connecticut, ./. H. U. 8., VII. 

2 The interpretation placed by Dr. Bronson on this clause of the con- 
stitution, namely, that the " supreme power of the commonwealth " was 
not in the ordinary General Court but only in the extraordinary Court 
summoned by the freemen, does not seem to be justified if the tenth 
article is read as a whole and in connection with the other articles of 
the constitution. Bronson, Early Government in Connecticut, New Ha/ven 
Hist. Soc. Papers, III, 316 et seq. 



OKGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 15 

expedient to grant to such bodies. Within its sphere the 
power of the General Court resembled much more closely 
that of the British Parliament to-day, than that of our 
own federal or state legislatures. In a very real sense 
it was the ' ' supreme power of the commonwealth. ' ' The 
founders of Connecticut did not conceive of a government 
of three coordinate branches. The legislature was un- 
questionably the preeminent branch of the governmental 
machinery. The executive and judicial branches were 
in a large measure subordinate, rather than coordinate 
parts of the government. Furthermore, the competence 
of the General Court was not limited by the so-called con- 
stitution. Whenever the General Court felt that the 
"Fundamentals" should be altered, it was done with no 
more apparent formality, than was required in passing 
an ordinary law. No extraordinary majorities were re- 
quired, nor was it necessary to submit amendments to the 
people for ratification.^ There were no individual rights 
which the General Court was bound to respect. The idea 
of an absolute sphere of individual immunity from all 
governmental action, which forms such an essential part 
of the modern American theory of government- was 
quite foreign to the political science of our Puritan an- 
cestors. 

That the legislators used their extensive powers to the 

1 In the light of these easily ascertained facts, it seems strange that 
so many writers have maintained that the constitution of 1639 was the 
first example of a " written " constitution in history. In point of fact it 
lacked the most essential characteristic of a " written " constitution, viz., 
that it was not the " Supreme law of the land " in the sense that it bound 
the legislature as well as the people. In force the constitution was no 
more than so many statutes. Johnson, op. cit., 63; Fiske, Beginnings of 
New England, 127; Bancroft, Hist, of the U. S., I, 402; Bryce, Studies in 
History and Jurisprudence, I, 170. 

2 These immunities are contained in the so-called " Bills of Rights " 
found in all modern American constitutions. No such Bill of Rights was 
contained in the Connecticut instrument of 1639. 



16 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOKATE COLONY. 

full, a brief examination of the records will reveal. To 
the rulers of Connecticut no subject was too trivial, and 
none too great to be considered a proper subject for legis- 
lation. From the making of war to the building of 
bridges, and from the formation of towns to the regula- 
tion of wages, all questions which advanced or retarded 
the sum of human happiness were undertaken with equal 
facility by the Solons of Connecticut. For the most part 
inexperienced in matters of government, the work of 
the legislature was crude, and often not founded on any 
fixed principles. Few laws were passed until the neces- 
sity for them was felt, and then they were applied to the 
particular case under consideration, with the result that 
much of the legislation was of the kind called special. A 
great part of the legislation was initiated by means of 
petitions. These petitions touched a great variety of 
subjects, and each one was decided upon its merits. The 
use of committees as a part of the legislative machinery 
early became common, but the committee system was 
never perfected to the extent which appears in the mod- 
ern legislative regimes. 

Those functions of government which are usually 
termed administrative, in distinction from the purely 
legislative functions, were largely retained by the General 
Court, and not given to the executive authorities. In 
military administration, while a committee or council of 
war was usually appointed, in times of danger, it was the 
creature of the General Court, subject to its orders and 
responsible to it for its actions. The administration of 
financial affairs was from the first under the control of 
the General Court. The collection and expenditure of 
public revenue, the regulation of the monetary system, 
and all the details of fiscal affairs, were completely con- 
trolled by the General Court. In judicial administra- 



ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 17 

tion,^ the legislature again was supreme. Courts were 
created, and their jurisdiction fixed by the General Court, 
while the judges and justices, for the most part, were 
appointed by the Court. In that department of adminis- 
tration which might be termed ' ' foreign affairs ' ' i. e., in 
questions concerning the relation of the colony to its 
neighbors, and to the mother country, the legislature 
maintained control. The Governor, it is true, was the 
medium through whom communications were sent, and 
received, to and from the home government or the neigh- 
boring colonies, but he was responsible to the Court for 
his acts, and referred all matters of importance to that 
body. Finally, in the administration of internal affairs, 
i. e., in providing for the health, peace and moral well 
being of the people, the activity of the General Court 
was detailed to the point of becoming burdensome.^ The 
building and repairing of roads and bridges, and pro- 
visions for religion and education, were important func- 
tions of the legislature, while the interference of the Gen- 
eral Court in private business and personal affairs, was 
of a nature that to-day would be considered intolerable. 

The power of appointment, which at the present time 
is more often associated with the executive than the legis- 
lative department, was in a large measure retained by 

^ By this is meant not the ordinary procedure of the courts of justice, 
but the creation and regulation of such courts. Goodnow, Comparative 
Administrative Law, I, 1 et seq. The position of the General Court as a 
part of the judicial machinery of the colony will be treated in the chapter 
on judicial affairs. 

2 One or two instances might be noted. In 1641 the General Court 
ordered the constables of the towns to observe the persons in their towns, 
and apprehend such as Avore clothes " beyond their condition and rank " 
and present the same to the Court for censure. In the same year the 
Court having learned that the soil of the colony would produce hemp and 
flax, ordered that every family should plant at least one spoonful of hemp 
seed. The wages of laborers and mechanics were specified in detail and 
any person accepting higher wages was open to the censure of the Court. 
Col. Rec, I, 52, 61, 64, 65. 



18 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

the General Court. Furthermore, in case of a vacancy in 
an elective office, from death or other cause, the Assem- 
bly assumed the right to fill such vacancy.^ Upon the sepa- 
ration of the legislature into two houses, a serious and 
prolonged dispute arose as to whether each house pos- 
sessed the negative voice in appointments and elections, 
as was the case in legislation. In 1707, upon the death 
of Governor Fitz John Winthrop while in office, a special 
session of the General Court was called to fill the vacancy. 
On this occasion, the votes of the members of both houses 
were mixed together before they were counted,^ In 1716, 
however, the two houses having failed to agree in the 
choice of certain officers, the Deputies passed the follow- 
ing resolution. 

''Resolved; That since ye Honble ye Upper House do 
not think fit to agree with us in ye Appointment of sev- 
eral needful officers in this Government, This House de- 
sire and insist, That ye Election of ye persons not yet 
agreed upon may be now performed according to ye 
privilege of ye Charter and ye Direction of ye law, 
whereby is given to each member of this Assembly, an 
equal Vote in ye Election, excepting only ye Govr. and 
in his Absence to ye Deputy Govr., a double vote when 
an Equivote shall happen.'"' The Upper House would 
not agree to this but voted to "consent to have it con- 
sidered in a Conference of both Houses, concluding that 
it will be found inconsistent with the Charter."* 

This appeal to the Charter by both houses is charac- 
teristic, but hardly convincing. The Charter did not 

1 A number of vacancies occurred as a result of the change in the manner 
of choosing officials from plurality to majority vote in 1742. Col. Rec, 
VIII, 453. 

2 MS. Rec. Civil Officers, I, 84. 

3 Ibid., I, 145. 
* Ibid., I, 162. 



OEGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 19 

contemplate the separation of the legislature into two 
houses. This had been done by simple legislative action 
in direct violation of the terms of the Charter. If the 
legislature could effect such a fundamental change, it 
was far-fetched to claim that it was beyond the com- 
petence of the legislature to alter a mere formal procedure 
in elections. 

For a number of years, at each session of the General 
Court, the question recurred, and threatened to seriously 
interfere with the governmental machinery.^ Finally, in 
1723 a compromise was reached so far as it concerned the 
choice of judges and justices. Either House could pre- 
pare a list of names, which was submitted to the other 
House. The latter could strike out such names as it saw 
fit, and add new ones, when the list was returned to the 
House in which it originated, and the process continued 
until a sufficient number of names were agreed upon by 
both Houses. 2 In principle, this was a victory for the 
Upper House. The same year, however, the whole ques- 
tion arose again upon the choice of a successor to Deputy 
Governor Gold, who had died in office. The Lower House 
desired that the two Houses meet in a joint convention, 
but this was refused by the Upper House. After some 
discussion the Lower House gave way, and Jos. Talcott 
was chosen Deputy Governor by the two Houses voting 
separately.^ The matter became more serious the follow- 
ing year, when it became necessary for the General Court 

^Between 1717 and 1723 several compromise propositions were sug- 
gested by the Upper House but they were all negatived by the Lower House. 
MS. Ree. Civil Officers, I, 173, 175, 322, 327. 

= Col. Rec, VI, 328. 

^ The Upper House chose Peter Burr who was negatived by the Lower 
House which chose Joseph Talcott who was negatived by the Upper House. 
The Lower House then chose Jonathan Law but the Upper House dissented. 
The following day the Upper House chose Joseph Talcott with which the 
Lower House concurred. MS. Rec. Civil Officers, I, 440, 441, 442. 



20 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPORATE COLONY. 

to choose a successor to Gov. Saltonstall, who had died 
suddenly of apoplexy. On this occasion the Lower House 
stood firm in its contention that the election should be 
held by the two houses in joint session, and the Upper 
House finally agreed that ''for the present occasion and 
for no other purpose or intent whatever, ' ' the two houses 
should be resolved into one assembly, and the election 
should proceed as had been done formerly before the 
separation of the Houses. The joint assembly then 
chose Joseph Talcott, Governor,^ The difficulty recurred 
with almost every election. The Lower House would re- 
iterate its "Charter Right to an election" by a joint as- 
sembly, but in most, if not all cases, the Upper House 
was able to maintain its position.^ The question was not 
finally settled during the colonial era. 

The powers of the General Court which have been out- 
lined were not altered in any material respect by the 
Royal Charter.^ To the colonists, the Charter was a 
bulwark of defence against the encroachments of the 
home government or the neighboring colonies, to which 
they were quick to appeal in times of danger; but it was 
not considered as a limitation upon the powers of the 
General Court. In fact the Charter was no more "fun- 
damental" than was the original constitution. Its pro- 

^ Col. Rec, VI, 483. 

^ In 1748 there was a contest over the choice of Deputy Governor, none 
of the candidates receiving a majority of the votes cast at the Court of 
Election. After considerable bickering Roger Walcott was elected by the 
two houses voting separately. MS. Rec. Civil Officers, III, 140-143, 167. 

' The suggestion made by Dr. Baldwin that the charter contemplated 
making the General Court merely an electoral and advisory body and 
vesting the legislative power in the Governor and Assistants, is hardly 
tenable. While such an interpretation might be drawn from the careless 
wording of the instrument, no such meaning was placed upon it by the 
colonial authorities and I have been unable to discover any contemporary 
expression by Winthrop or the other colony leaders that such was the 
intention of the authorities in England. Baldwin, Three Constitutions of 
Connecticut, A'etc Haven Hist. 8oc. Papers, V, 186. 



ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 21 

visions were changed or modified by the General Court 
with the same freedom as had been done with the "Fun- 
damental Orders."^ 

The eighteentli century brought no material change in 
the powers of the General Court. In fact the powers of 
the legislature in the corporate colonies do not repre- 
sent a gradual development, as was the case in the 
provinces. In the former the powers of the legislative 
body were ample from the beginning, and the only prob- 
lem which confronted the colonists was how to maintain 
these powers intact from the encroachment of the home 
government. In this Massachusetts failed, while Con- 
necticut and Rhode Island, by more judicious use of their 
powers, were enabled to maintain their liberal form of 
government throughout the colonial period. 

During the first three years of the colony's history no 
distinct executive authority appeared. All the functions 
of government, executive and judicial as well as legis- 
lative, were centred in the Massachusetts Commission 
and in the Court which displaced the Commission. In 
the Fundamental Orders the first attempt was made to 
differentiate the functions of government. Here it was 
provided that there should be a Governor chosen each 
year by the freemen of the colony.- Like the other magis- 

1 Two important changes in the charter effected by the General Court 
have already been noted, namely, the separation of the legislature into two 
houses and the adoption of proxy voting. Professor Bryce says that the 
colonists became accustomed to the idea of an instrument superior to the 
legislature and the laws which it passed, because they possessed a charter 
which could not be changed by the legislature. While in theory the 
legislature was bound by the provisions of the charter, in point of fact, the 
General Court, as has been seen, made fundamental changes in its pro- 
visions, and it must be admitted that there is no evidence that the 
colonists, at least in Connecticut, became acquainted with the essentials 
of a " rigid " or " written " constitution from their experience with a royal 
charter. Bryce, op. cit., I, 170. 

2 No mention is made of a Deputy Governor, but the Magistrate receiv- 
ing the greatest number of votes next to the Governor bore the title and 
exercised the functions of a Deputy Governor. 



22 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

trates, the Governor was nominated in some Court before 
the Court of Election. He must, moreover, be a member 
of some ''approved congregation," and have been for- 
merly a magistrate. No person could be chosen Governor 
more than once in two years. ^ The Charter made no 
change in the organization of the executive, except that it 
specially provided for a Deputy Governor, as well as a 
Governor. 

Upon the Governor fell the duty of summoning the two 
regular sessions of the General Court, and also, with the 
advice of a major part of the magistrates, at such other 
times as was deemed necessary. While the Governor could 
summon the General Court, he could not prevent its meet- 
ing, neither could he adjourn or dissolve it, without its con- 
sent. The Governor, or Deputy Governor, presided over 
the sessions of the General Court. He could give "lib- 
erty of speech," put all questions to vote, and in case of 
a tie have the casting vote. He did not have the power 
to veto any act of the General Court. The Charter^ in 
theory, slightly increased the power of the Governor in 
legislation. He only, or in his absence the Deputy Gov- 
ernor, could summon any General Court, and no Court 
could be held without his presence or that of the Deputy 
Governor. He was not given a casting vote in case of 
a tie, but this power seems soon to have been reestab- 
lished.^ The Charter failed to state, as did the constitu- 
tion, that no General Court could be adjourned or dis- 
solved without its own consent.^ There is no evidence, 

* This provision was another expression of the democratic sentiments 
of the founders of Connecticut. In practice the restriction was of little 
value. While in force there was a tolerably regular succession in the 
offices of Governor and Deputy Governor, the incumbents merely changing 
places each year. In 1660 the restriction was entirely removed by striking 
out this clause of the constitution. Col. Rec, I, 346, 347. 

« Code of 1672. 

3 This provision reappeared in the Code of 1672. 



OKGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 23 

however, that the Governors subsequent to the granting 
of the Charter, exercised any greater control over legis- 
lation than had those under the constitution. At no time 
during the colonial period could the Governor be con- 
sidered a coordinate branch of the legislature. He was 
simply the presiding officer of the Court, and, after the 
separation of the legislature into two houses, of the 
Upper House. 

While it does not appear that the Governor communi- 
cated advice to the General Court in the shape of a 
message at each session, this method was not infrequently 
employed. Such communications were not materially 
different from similar documents at the present day. 
Information was given as to the general state of the 
colony, communications from the home government and 
the neighboring colonies were referred to the considera- 
tion of the Court, and advice was given regarding neces- 
sary legislation.^ At times the message was referred to 
a committee of the Court which reported upon the recom- 
mendations.^ 

It has been noted that the General Court retained most 
of the administrative functions of government in its own 
hands. Here, as in legislation, the Governor did little 
more than register the will of the legislature.^ 

A mere enumeration of the powers of the Executive, 
however, would give a wrong impression of the actual 
influence exerted by the Governor, as a part of the gov- 

• See messages of Gov. Fitz John Winthrop, Mass. Hist. Colls., 6th Ser., 
Ill, 157, 184, 290, and of Gov. Talcott, Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., IV, 289. 
See also MS. Rec. Civil Officers, I, 97, 163, 286, etc. 

2 MS. Rec. Civil Officers, I, 171. 

3 In 1721 Gov. Saltonstall claimed that according to the charter the 
Governor should nominate all officers appointed by the General Court, 
but he agreed to submit to the opinion of the two houses. The court 
decided that it could not accept the views of the Governor. MS. Rec. Civil 
Officers, 1, 286, 288, 290. 



24 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOEATE COLONY. 

ernmental machinery. While his powers in the abstract 
were slight, his influence was unquestionably, in most 
instances, extensive. This influence depended in a large 
measure upon the personality of the Executive and upon 
his ability to maintain friendly relations with the legis- 
lature and direct the legislation which he could not con- 
trol. In most cases the persons chosen to the office of 
chief magistrate, fulfilled these requirements admirably. 
While the term of office was nominally one year it came 
to be practically a permanent tenure.^ Barely was a 
person once chosen Governor retired, except by death 
or some other infirmity. Chosen generally from among 
the leading families,^ respected by the freemen who 
elected him, there is abundant evidence in the records 
that the chief magistrate wielded considerable influence 
in shaping the affairs of the commonwealth. 

From the foundation of the colony the Governor or 
Deputy Governor, with the assistants, had met together 
as a '^ Particular Court," but the functions of this body 
were mainly judicial.^ It was not until the gi-anting of 
the Charter that the assistants appear distinctly as an 
advisory administrative body to the Governor. The 
Charter provided that the Governor or Deputy Governor, 
and the assistants, should ''apply themselves to take care 
for the best disposing and ordering of the general busi- 
ness and affairs" of the colony. A few months after 

1 After 1660 when the restriction preventing a person from being chosen 
Governor more than once in two years was removed, there are but three 
instances in which a person having been chosen Governor was not reelected 
yearly for life. 

* A contemporary authority says, — " In all their elections of Governor, 
councellcrs, representatives, judges and other public officers, by custom 
they generally choose the most worthy." Douglass, Summary, II, 158. 

» Col. Rec, I, 71, 81, 119, etc. The Fundamental Orders stated that 
the Governor and Magistrates should " administer justice according to the 
laws here established, and for want thereof according to the rule of the 
word of the Word of God." 



ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 25 

the receipt of the Charter, the General Court constituted 
the assistants a standing council ''to act in emergt oc- 
casions that concerne ye welfare of this colony."^ From 
the fragmentary records, it appears that the Council be- 
gan to act in matters of importance. By its order, a com- 
mittee was dispatched to the town of West Chester to 
settle certain disputed questions. Orders were sent to 
towns on the eastern end of long Island, warning them 
to submit to the authority of Connecticut, and a rate was 
ordered to be levied on these towns. The town of Wick- 
ford was named by order of the Council.^ The activity 
of the Council was, however, cut short by the repeal, two 
years later, of the act under which it was constituted.^ 

The Council reappeared in 1675.^ To the Governor 
and assistants were added two military officers and two 
civilians. The powers of the body were more definitely 
stated. They were to have ''as full power as the Charter 
will allow," to act in "all matters and things emergent" 
provided their acts were not inconsistent with the Char- 
ter.^ The order constituting the Council was to remain 
in force only until the next meeting of the Court, at which 
time the Council was again constituted with certain 
changes in the names of individuals added, and without 
any limitation as to time.^ In 1678 all names of private 
citizens were stricken from the commission, and at each 
session of the General Court from then until the coming 
of Andros in 1687, the Governor and assistants were con- 
stituted a council.^ The General Court was careful to 

1 Col. Rec, I, 397. The assistants appear to have been acting as a 
Council before this act was passed. Ibid., I, 398; II, 331. 

« Col. Rec, I, 406, 407, 424. 

» Ibid., I, 440. 

* In 1673 there was created a Council of War which is not to be con- 
fused with the Governor's Council. 

s Col. Rec, II, 261. 

6 Ibid., II, 270. 

1 The quorum of the Assistants was fixed at three. Col. Rec, III, 15. 



26 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

restrict the powers of this body. In 1691 it was provided 
that they could raise no money, nor make any alteration 
in the Charter, and to these restrictions was later added 
the provision that they should send no men out of the 
colony, except in cases of emergency.^ This evident jeal- 
ousy of a standing council, shown by the General Court 
reconstituting it at each session and specifying its powers 
was, possibly, a reflection of the controversy over a simi- 
lar question in the early days of the Massachusetts 
colony. ^ 

Upon the resumption of government under the Charter 
after the overthrow of Andros, the Council reappeared. 
For a number of years, at each session of the Court, spe- 
cial acts constituting such a body were passed. At times 
certain deputies or freemen were added to the assistants, 
and on one occasion the Governor was empowered to 
choose his own Council.^ The last time that the Council 
was specifically ''stated" was in 1719, though it appears 
that the assistants continued to meet at intervals, as a 
Council, throughout the eighteenth century. 

At first the meetings of the Council were frequent, 
often once a week, and its activity included the receiv- 
ing and naming of new towns, conferring land patents, 
granting licenses to sell liquor, appointing fast days 
and days of Thanksgiving, receiving and answering let- 
ters and orders from the authorities in England, the 
colonial agents and the officials of the neighboring col- 
onies, issuing military orders, and ordering the payment 
of public debts.^ On at least one occasion the Council 
chose an official of the colony to fill a vacancy caused by 
death. ^ 

1 Col. Rec, IV, 62, 489 ; V, 32, 53. 

* Osgood, American Colonies, I, 178. 
» Col. Rec, IV, 14, 399, 489; V, 22. 

♦ Col. Rec, I, 407, 411; XV, 531 et seq. 
» Ibid., XV, 558. 



ORGANS OF LEGISLATION AND ADMINISTRATION. 27 

The Court from time to time ordered the Council to 
perform certain specified acts. Thus they were required 
to appoint an agent of the colony in England, to attend 
to ''laying in a stock of pork," and to look after the 
''Gospelizing" of the Indians^ At first, it was customary 
for the General Court to pass upon the acts of the Coun- 
cil,^ and, in one instance at least, its action was disap- 
proved.^ During the greater part of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, because of the dearth of records,^ we are left wholly 
in the dark as to the activity of the Council. The fact, 
however, that in the records of the General Court no ref- 
erence is made to the body for such a long period, would 
incline one to believe that it had ceased to be an important 
adjunct of the governmental machinery.^ 

^Col. Rec, V, 325, 337; V, 15. 

* Col. Rec, IV, 202, 205, 222, etc. 
» Ibid., IV, 284. 

* There is no Council Journal extant between the years 1728 and 1770. 

"The extant Council records after 1770 are of little interest and con- 
cern largely the ordering of the payment of public accounts. Col. Rec, 
XIII, 355, 412, 504. 



CHAPTER 11. 

Finance and Currency. 

It is proposed under this heading to treat financial 
history in its broadest sense. Besides an account of the 
monetary system, an attempt will be made to outline the 
principal sources of colonial revenue and expense, with 
some account of the control of the public revenue. From 
a constitutional standpoint, the consideration of these 
questions is not as important in the corporate colonies, as 
in the royal or proprietary provinces. In the latter, the 
question of the control of the purse, was the most fruit- 
ful source of conflict between the democratic and prero- 
gative elements. All other issues were in a measure sub- 
ordinated to the money question. In the nature of things 
such a conflict was not possible in the corporate colonies. 
In these colonies the financial question is of interest 
rather from the economic or social, than from the consti- 
tutional standpoint. Its consideration shows how a com- 
munity left largely to its own resources, having little 
knowledge of the science of government and less of the 
science of finance, tried to adjust revenue to expenditure, 
and expenditure to revenue ; how it attempted in an hon- 
est but crude way to advance its material prosperity by 
experimenting with a protective tariff, how it became in- 
fatuated with the paper money craze, and tried to extri- 
cate itself from the inevitable disaster. 

Land was the first and throughout the most important 
basis of taxation. Probably it was due to the fact that 
land had little or no selling value during the early years 
of the colony's history that it was assessed not according 

28 



FINANCE AND CTJBRENCY. 29 

to its selling value, but according to some rough estimate 
of its probable revenue.^ No attempt was made at first 
to classify land according to its location or quality. 
With the increase in population and the opening up of 
less desirable land, the inequality of the old method be- 
came more and more apparent. It was not however until 
1676^ that a committee appointed for the purpose sub- 
mitted a report which was adopted by the General Court, 
by which land was rated according to its use, quality, 
locality and position.^ The schedule thus established was 
somewhat modified in 1712, by which a new classification 
was made according to locality, and more minute differen- 
tiation in the quality of the land.* To the tax upon land 
was early added a general property tax.^ This tax first 
fell upon property that was incident to land, such as 
houses and cattle, the latter being rated according to age.^ 
Gradually the scope of the tax was widened to include all 
^'visible" estate; mills, ships, cranes, wharves and "mer- 
chantable goods" were levied upon according to their 
estimated values."^ 

^ This method of rating land according to estimated revenue continued 
through the colonial era. Jones, Hist, of Taxation in Connecticut, J. H. 
U. 8., XIV, 354. A contemporary authority says that in assessing rates 
land was valued at seven years income. Douglas, Summary, II, 177. 

* In New Haven as early as 1640 land had been rated according to its 
location. N. H. Col. Rec, I, 43. 

^ Meadow lands Avere rated at from 55s. to 20s. per acre, the best being 
in Wethersfield ; home lots from 40s. to 15s. per acre, Hartford and 
Wethersfield being the highest; improved uplands used for tillage 25s. to 
8s. per acre, the uplands of Hartford south side being the best; mowing 
and pasture land at from 20s. to 10s. per acre ; all other " impropriated " 
land at Is. per acre. Col. Rec, II, 294. 

* Col. Rec, V, 334. 

" In 1640 Mr. Allen was required to pay a tax on his land and " all 
stocke as is resident or usually imployed in and thereupon." Col. Rec, 
I, 53. 

» Col. Rec, I, 549. 

''Ibid., I, 548. Property exempted from such taxation included: (1) 
Cattle under one year of age, (2) hay and corn in the "husbandman's 



30 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOKATE COLONY. 

The Poll tax early became a feature of colonial taxa- 
tion.^ In the code of 1650 all male persons above 16 years 
of age, were taxed 2s. 6d. "by the head." The follow- 
ing year the tax was reduced to 18d.^ Under Andros 
in was raised to Is. 8d., but later reduced to 18d.^ In 
1737 the manner of expressing the tax was changed. 
Each person was placed in the list at 18 pounds for his 
poll. A tax of Id. in the pound, returning the same 
amount as before.^ Exemptions of particular individuals 
or classes were made from time to time by the Greneral 
Court.^ 

The Connecticut lawmakers, and a large portion of 
these doubtless were land owners, with a desire to lessen 
the burden of taxation on land and property, early 
turned their attention to such persons "who by the ad- 
vantage of their Artes and Trades" were able to bear 
some part of the colony expenses. In the code of 1650 
a faculty or income tax first appears.'' Here it was pro- 
vided that "Butchers, Bakers, Bruers, Victuallers, 
Smiths, Carpenters, Taylors, Shoemakers, Joiners, Bar- 
hand," (3) vessels owned in the colony employed in whale or cod fishing 
four months of the year, (4) all estates used for ecclesiastical, educational 
or charitable purposes, (5) all houses and barns except warehouses, (6) 
each trooping horse. Col. Rec, I, 433, 549; VIII, 133; XIII, 365 Jones, 
op. cit., 22. 

* The poll tax first appeared in Massachusetts in 1646. Mass. Col. Rec, 
II, 173. 

^'Col. Rec, I, 229. 

^Ibid., Ill, 406. 

*Ibid., VIII, 133. 

" These included Magistrates, ministers, elders, the rector of Yale 
College, and such persons as were disabled by " sickness, lameness or other 
infirmity." To these were added from time to time particular persons 
who had suffered some misfortune, as loss by fire. Col. Rec, I, 548; III, 
215; VIII, 133. 

* In 1649 New Haven adopted an income tax. Both the Connecticut 
and New Haven laws were almost verbatim reproductions of an earlier 
Massachusetts law. N. H. Col. Rec, I, 494; Conn. Col. Rec, I, 549; 
Mass. Col. Rec, II, 173. 



FINANCE AND CUKRENCY. 31 

bers, Millers and Masons, with all other manuall persons 
and Artists" should be rated "for their returns and 
gains" in proportion, as other persons paid for the pro- 
duce of their estates. In time the scope of the tax was 
increased. In 1725 all "allowed" attorneys were rated 
according to their ' ' faculties, ' ' the least practitioners at 50 
pounds and others proportionately.^ In 1757 it was or- 
dered that all persons "who let out money at interest" 
should be rated according to their gains. ^ Listers had used 
largely their own discretion in fixing the amount of fac- 
ulty or income tax. Such a system, even though honestly 
administered, was bound to give rise to dissatisfaction. 
To remedy these evils, the General Court in 1771, speci- 
fied in detail the rates of income taxes. ^ In this form the 
faculty tax continued to the end of the century practically 
unchanged. The faculty tax, the operation of which has 
been outlined, was at best, a crude attempt to shift a part 
of the burden of taxation from the property holding 
class. It became in many instances an inequitable and 
burdensome tax. It was not an income tax in the modern 
sense of the term. No attempt was made to ascertain 
the actual profits or earnings of particular individuals, 
but the levy was made on certain assumed earnings. * 
Exemptions from, and abatement of taxes were a com- 
mon feature. Besides personal exemptions, some of which 
have been noted, it was customary to free whole towns 
from colony rates for a greater or less period of time. 
Specific reasons were always given for such exemptions. 

1 Col. Rec, V, 525; VIII, 133. 

2 Ibid., XI, 14. 

' Traders and shop keepers were to be rated at 10 per cent, of the 
cost of all goods sold at retail, except produce and manufactures of the 
colony. Wholesale traders, artificers and tavern keepers were rated ac- 
cording to their annual profits. Col. Rec, XIII, 513. 

* Seligman, Colonial and State Income Taxes, Pol. Science Quarterly, 
June, 1895. 



32 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPOEATE COLONY. 

Such were for the "encouragement" of a new plantation, 
to help build a meeting house, or school houses, for the 
building of a mill, or because a town had suffered from 
fire, Indian ravages or other calamities. Poor persons 
might be allowed an abatement of their taxes upon the 
recommendation of the select men of the town, in which 
case the amount abated was paid by the town.^ 

Excise and custom duties formed a less important part 
of the colony revenue. The system of indirect taxation, 
if the scattered laws dealing with the subject may be 
called a system, developed late in the colonial period. In 
general, the purpose of the indirect taxes was to relieve 
the burden of direct taxation. 

As early as 1638 a tax had been laid upon the beaver 
trade, and in 1646, an excise on wine.- During the An- 
dres regime, the laws relating to excise were more de- 
tailed, but not different in character, and throughout the 
18th century, the principle of the excise continued with- 
out material change.^ The first customs duty was that 
levied upon wines in 1654.^ In 1662 a duty was laid upon 
tobacco. The same year all laws imposing duties were 
repealed, and free trade was established throughout the 
colony. This experiment, however, lasted only until the 
next session of the Court, when the old duties were re- 
established.^ During the Andros regime, the only change 
affected was in increasing and specifying the duties on 

^Col. Rec, I, 185, 348; II, 113; III, 2, 240. Ibid., XIII, 94. 

^ Col. Rec, I, 20, 31, 146. 

''Ibid., Ill, 409; X, 408, 451; XII, 296. 

* Ibid., I, 255. In point of fact the first customs duty was an export 
duty on goods passing down the Connecticut River. This was, however, 
merely a temporary duty levied for the special purpose of defraying the 
expenses of the purchase of Saybrook from Mr. Fenwick. The attempt 
to collect this duty involved the colony in a serious dispute with Massa- 
chusetts. Col. Rec, I, 119, 120, 170; IT, 59. Trumbull, op. cit., I, 184, 
194, 508; Palfrey, Hist, of New England, II, 240, 242, 

" Col. Rec, I, 380, 391, 395. 



FINANCE AND CUERENCY. 33 

liquors.^ In 1696 the Court ordered that all foreigners 
bringing goods into the colony to sell, should pay a duty 
of 2 per cent, of the value of the goods, which was changed 
two years later to 12^s. on 100 pounds' worth of goods. ^ 
At the same time foreigners were interpreted to mean 
all those who were not inhabitants of the colony. This 
law might be considered as an embryo form of the pro- 
tective tariff. It was probably, however an attempt to 
place non-residents on an equal footing with the inhabi- 
tants who were required to pay the faculty or income 
tax on merchandise sold in the colony.^ In 1714 a heavy 
export duty was laid on barrel, pipe, and hogshead staves, 
exported to any of the New England colonies. New York 
or New Jersey. The stated objects of this act were two- 
fold: (1) To preserve the timber of the colony, and (2) 
to encourage direct exportation from the colony to the 
West Indies.^ In 1735 a duty of 16d. per gallon was laid 
on rum imported in vessels not owned in the colony, and 
8d. by those owned in the colony, but this act was repealed 
the same year.^ In 1747 the Court imposed a duty of 5 per 
cent, on goods imported from the neighboring colonies, 
and if by non-resident importers 7^ per cent., while to 
encourage direct importation from England and Ireland, 
a bounty of 5 per cent, was granted, but the following 
year the act was repealed.^ In 1757 the General Court 

1 Ibid., IV, 249. 

2 Ibid., IV, 167, 251. 

' In 1713 an act passed the upper house of the legislature placing a 
duty of 5 per cent, on all goods brought into the colony by non-residents. 
This was negatived in the lower house. Journal of the upper and lower 
houses, October, 1713. 

♦ Col. Rec, V, 434. The following year similar duties were laid on 
planks, ship timber and boards. In 1747 the duties on these articles were 
increased. Ibid., V, 499; IX, 286. 

^Ibid., VII, 565; VIII, 7. 

6 Ibid., IX, 285, 393. There were excepted from this tax slit-iron, nails, 
salt, steel, beaver, leather, deer-skin, dry and pickled fish, train oil, whale 
bone, rice, tar, turpentine, window-glass and lumber. 



34 CONNECTICUT AS A COKPOKATE COLONY. 

once more imposed a duty of 5 per cent, on merchandise 
brought into the colony either from the neighboring col- 
onies or abroad. Whether this act was repealed or not, 
does not appear, but in 1768 another act similar in all 
respects, save in the number of articles excepted from 
the law, was passed. This law, however, lasted but two 
years, the colony agent having written to Gov. Trumbull, 
that it had given great offense to England.^ Amidst all 
this indecision and more or less haphazard legislation 
relating to revenue, one or two things seem to be toler- 
ably clear. The colony officials in an honest effort to 
stimulate the commerce and trade of the colony, sought in 
a crude manner to exclude the products of the neighbor- 
ing colonies, and to an extent, those of the mother coun- 
try, but none of the laws enacted for the purpose remained 
in force for a sufficient length of time to prove the truth 
or fallacy of the principle involved. The evident caution 
shown by the authorities in dealing with the subject was 
probably due not to any fear of '^monkeying with the 
tariff buzz-saw," but to them, the more conscious fear 
of interference by the authorities in England. 

Another form of indirect taxation which appeared 
during the colonial period, was tonnage duties. During 
the Andros regime,^ tonnage duty of 12d., or a pound of 
powder, per ton was levied on all vessels not owned in 
New England.^ This act, somewhat modified, remained 
in force after the resumption of government under the 
Charter. In 1744 a tonnage duty was levied to supply 
powder for the fort at New London, in 1757 a similar duty 
to support a colony war vessel, and in 1760 for erecting 
and maintaining a lighthouse at New London.^ 

^Col. Rec, IX, 285; XI, 10; XIII, 72, 299; Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 5th 
Series, IX, 387. 

■ Col. Rec, III, 410. 
^lUd., IX, 75; XI, 10, 469. 



FINANCE AND CUBRENCY. t5& 

Finally, of the minor sources of revenue, a word might 
be said. Fines, which especially during the early years of 
the colony's history, were imposed for a variety of of- 
fenses. There were fines for absence from trainings, de- 
fault of arms and ammunition, immoderate drinking, sell- 
ing arms and ammunition to the natives, for bachelors who 
kept house without consent of the authorities, for profanity 
and contempt of authority.^ An almost negligible revenue 
was obtained during the early years from tribute exacted 
from the Indians, for damage done by them.^ During 
the eighteenth century, the sale of public lands added 
some income to the colony treasury.^ 

At the head of the administrative machinery for gath- 
ering colonial revenue was the treasurer. By him the 
writs were issued to the collectors in the different towns.* 
The constable early became the chief collecting officer in the 
towns. ^ Prior to 1650 when a tax was to be levied the Gen- 
eral Court fixed upon the sum necessary to be raised and 
this was proportioned among the towns'^ by a committee 
composed of an equal number of persons from each town. 
This simple system was soon found to have its disad- 
vantages. Granting that an honest effort was made to 
apportion the tax equitably, only a crude estimate of the 
relative ability of each town could be made. With the 
increase of population, and the formation of new towns, 
such a system was bound to become inequitable, if not 
positively unjust. To remedy these evils a system already 
in practice in Massachusetts was adopted. This was 
the principle of the Grand List. In each town were 
chosen three or four men as listers. These listers were 

1 Col. Rec, I, 29, 49, 50, etc.; II, 119, 257, etc. 
. 2 Ihid., I, 52, 303, 316. 
3 Ihid., VIII, 135. 
* Ibid., I, 12. 
« Ihid., I, 550. 
6 Ihid., I, 25. 



36 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

required to prepare a list of all males over 16 years of 
age, with a true estimation of their estates, both real and 
personal. At a specified time, one of the listers (later 
a deputy of the General Court) from each town, met at 
Hartford for the purpose of correcting and equalizing 
the lists, which were then returned to the towns for assess- 
ment.^ Upon the list prepared in the manner indicated, 
was levied the country rate. This assumed the form of 
a certain percentage of the list. For a number of years 
the usual per cent, was Id. on the pound. With the slow 
growth of the Grand List, the amount returned from 
such a tax was a tolerably fixed quantity. In time this 
amount became known as "a rate" or "a whole rate," 
and when a greater or less amount was required for pub- 
lic expense, a multiple or a fraction of the "rate" was 
levied.^ 

Great care was taken by the colonial authorities to 
have all persons bear their just share of the public 
expense. Any persons who failed to hand in a correct 
list of his estate was rated "will and doom," that is, at 
the discretion of the listers.^ Later (1703) was intro- 
duced the custom of assessing all estate omitted from the 
list at four times its value. From this came the "four- 
fold" assessments which are met with frequently in the 
records.^ Failure to pay rates within a specified time 
made the property of the individual liable to be levied 
upon by process of distress, beginning with the seizure 
of merchandise or cattle, then lands and houses, and 
finally the person of the individual.^ Then there appeared 

^ Col. Rec, I, 548. 

* Thus in 1652 a half a rate was ordered, and in 1653 a rate and a 
half. Col. Rec, I, 2.36, 249. Later, however, the custom of reduplicating 
the rate was dropped, and the per cent, was raised or lowered as occasion 
required. Col. Rec, I, 285, 307, 324, etc 

» Ibid., IV, 6. 

* Col. Rec, IV., 439. 

6 Ibid., I, 550; .Jones, op. cit., 388. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 37 

the Inspector of Lists. The functions of this officer were 
to verify and correct the work of the listers.^ Constables 
were required to return the colony rate to the Treasurer 
by the last day of June each year.^ In order that the 
constables might reach non-resident land holders, they 
were given (1719) the same jurisdiction throughout the 
colony as they exercised in their own towns^. The con- 
stables were held to strict accountability for collection of 
all rates, and in case of deficiency, their property was 
liable to be levied upon by the Treasurer, who in turn was 
responsible to the General Court.* 

The excise and customs duties were collected by spe- 
cial officials. In 1659 the Court appointed "Custom 
Masters" in nine towns.^ In 1698 the Governor was 
authorized to appoint one collector of excise in each 
county. The power of appointment was later transferred 
to the County Courts, and then to the towns.*^ In 1747 
the Court authorized the Governor to appoint a collector 
of customs in each county, and later this power was trans- 
ferred to the towns, and the number increased to one 
from each town.^ In 1776 the Governor was made head 
naval officer, with power to appoint under collectors in 
certain specified towns.^ 

Provisions for defence, formed perhaps the largest 
single item of expense. Under this heading were in- 
cluded, salaries and pensions of soldiers, military sup- 

1 Ibid., V, 81, 440, 503. Special inspectors were at first chosen, then 
the work was assigned to the deputies of the General Court, and finally 
the office was merged with that of lister. Jones, op. cit.^ 370. 

2 Col. Rec, I, 113, 551. 

3 Ibid., VI, 154. 
* Ibid., I, 551. 

5 Ibid., I, 332. In 1665 the treasurer with the deputies from Hartford 
were authorized to farm out the customs. Ibid., II, 15. 
e Ibid., IV, 262; V. 56; VII, 562. 
I Ibid., IX, 283; XI, 11. 
8 Col. Rec, XV, 280. 



38 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOKATE COLONY. 

plies, appropriations for the. building and repair of forts 
and fortifications, and the maintenance of armed vessels 
for coast defence. It had been customary from the first 
to grant specified salaries to soldiers and officers when in 
active service, and such continued to be the jDractice 
during the whole colonial era. The General Court would 
usually fix the rate of pay at the beginning of each expe- 
dition or campaign.^ Besides the regular salaries, not 
infrequently extra compensation in the shape of gratui- 
ties and bounties was granted to the soldiers.^ There is 
no record of any general pension act having been passed 
during the colonial period, but a considerable number of 
special pension acts were passed for the relief of in- 
dividual soldiers or their families.^ During the earlier 
years of the colony's history, the supply of arms and 
ammunition was largely a charge upon the localities. 
Enactments requiring the possession of arms and ammu- 
nitions by all male persons able to bear arms, were of fre- 
quent occurrence.^ When, however, the intercolonial 
wars of the eighteenth century greatly extended the scope 
and expense of military operations, the cost of equipping 
and supplying the militia became a more and more im- 
portant item of colonial expense,^ 

The forts and fortifications in the coast and frontier 
towns, were maintained partly by local taxation, and 
partly by colonial grants.^ The building and equipping 

^Col. Rec, I, 11, 15; V, 80, 83, 93, etc.; IX, 93, 110, etc.; X, 317, 345, 
etc. 

UUd., X, 450, 495, 599; XI, 94. 

Uhid., XI, 37, 86, 110, etc. MS. Rec. War, III, 134 et seq. 

*Col. Rec, I, 3, 15; IV, 18. 

" There was a constant complaint of a lack of arms and ammunition, 
and appeals were made to the home government for aid. MS. Rec. War, 
VI, 26, 76. 

'The principal forts were at Saybrook and New London. These forts 
were maintained partly by the tonnage duty and partly by special grants 
of the Court. Col. Rec, 19, 120, 400. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 39 

of armed vessels for coast defence, was an expense of 
minor importance.^ Down until the opening of Philip's 
War, the expenses for defence were comparatively light,^ 
but this war, followed by the long series of intercolonial 
wars which opened with the last decade of the seventeenth 
century, entailed upon the colony a large and continuous 
expense for military affairs. Connecticut was favored by 
her geographical position, not being so immediately ex- 
posed to the attacks of the French and Indians, as were 
her neighboring colonies on the north and west, but she 
was always generous in supplying men and money for 
purposes of mutual defence.^ The absence of records 
makes any estimate of military expenses for the four 
intercolonial wars, hardly more than a guess,* but there 
is no doubt they were a heavy burden, and offered an 
excuse, if not a justification, for Connecticut's disastrous 
experiments with paper currency. 

Next to tne expenditure for military purposes, prob- 
ably the most important item of expense was in providing 
for the salaries and expenses of the colonial officials. 
Salaries at first were irregularly paid, and generally 
small in amount.^ The Governor's salary which in 1700 

I See chapter on military affairs. 

* The highest rate up to that time was 2l^d. in the pound, but as a 
result of that war the taxes rapidly increased. In 1675 they had risen 
to 12d. in the pound and in 1678 to 18d. in the pound. Col. Rec, II, 269, 
292, 401. 

* During part of the first intercolonial war from 1688 to 1696 Connecti- 
cut expended 7759 pounds 14s. 9d. in assisting the neighboring colonies. 
Col. Rec, IV, 191 note; MS. Rec. Foreign Correspondence, II, 60; War, III, 
10a, 10b. During three years of the second intercolonial war Connecticut 
expended about 18,000 pounds in the defence of the Massachusetts towns. 
MS. Rec. War, II, 67a, 67b. 

< Trumbull estimates the expenses of Connecticut in the first inter- 
colonial war at more than 12,000 pounds, and in the last intercolonial war, 
after deducting parliamentary grants, at 400,000 pounds. Trumbull, op. 
cit., I, 397; II, 453. 

5 In 1641 a salary was first paid to the Governor. It consisted of 160 
bu. of corn. Col. Rec, 1, 69. At the opening of the eighteenth century 



40 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPOEATE COLONY. 

was 140 pounds, had risen to 250 pounds in 1728; 300 
pounds in 1730 and 350 pounds in 1736. Much of this ap- 
parent increase, however, was more than offset by the 
rapid depreciation of the bills of credit, in which salaries 
were paid.^ It does not appear from the records that 
there was any considerable extension of the salary system 
during the eighteenth century. The salaries, particularly 
of the executive officers, were granted for no longer period 
than one year, and later semi-annually.^ 

This evident fear of stated salaries was probably anal- 
ogous to that which appeared in the neighboring colonies 
of Massachusetts and New York, though with no good 
reason for such fear. Throughout the colonial history 
of Connecticut fees formed a more important part of the 
income of officials, than did salaries. The Secretary and 
the Magistrates, were especially dependent upon fees.^ 
Besides the salaries and fees, extra compensation in the 
form of gratuities or pensions, was not infrequently 

the salaries of the various officials were, annually: Governor 140 pounds, 
Deputy Governor 50 pounds, Secretary 10 pounds. Sheriff 10 pounds, 
Speaker of the House 30s. for each session, Clerk of the General Court 
50s., Treasurer 10 pounds and 16 pounds for " riding the circuit." Col. 
Rec, IV, 330. 

1 Gov. Saltonstall had a long dispute with the General Court concerning 
his salary. He claimed that the salary of 200 pounds was granted " in 
or as money," and that he should not suffer because of the depreciation 
in the bills of credit. The Court, however, did not see fit to agree with 
him. Col. Rec, 443 note. In 1733 Gov. Talcott complained to the General 
Court of his inability to support himself on the salary granted to him 
because of the depreciation in the currency; and the Court granted him 
an extra 100 pounds. Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., IV, 289. MS. Rec. Civil 
Officers, II, 216. 

* After 1740 it was customary to grant salaries semi-annually at the 
two stated meetings of the General Court. 

' The secretary, for example, received 2s. 6d. for each copy of public 
orders sent to the towns; Is. for each entry of public laws and orders; 
2s. for affixing the public seal to documents, or Is. if to public orders; Is. 
for writing each military commission. Is. 6d. for each justice's commission; 
and 3s. for each petition to the General Court. Col. Rec, IV, 313. For 
a detailed list of the fees of the various officials see Col. Rec, IX, 287 et seq. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 41 

granted to colony officials and other persons for some 
special work performed for the colony.^ Pensions took 
the form of exemption from taxation for a given period, 
or for life, or freedom from rates combined with a grant 
of money. ^ The increased activity during the eighteenth 
century of the authorities in England in relation to colo- 
nial affairs, and the frequent attacks which were made 
upon the charter of Connecticut, necessitated the almost 
continuous employment of a colonial agent in England, 
and the payment of his salary and expenses was an item 
of some importance in the colony's expenses. The money 
appropriated for these purposes, was given with no very 
good grace, and the General Court jealously watched the 
use to which it was put.^ 

Although the provisions for education were a charge 
upon the towns, there are numerous instances of grants 
made by the General Court, for the support of schools. 
This was especially the case in providing for the support 
of Yale College.4 

A minor expense was incurred by the colony in working 
out the details of its policy towards the natives. Before 
the close of the seventeenth century, the Indians within 
the borders of Connecticut had ceased to be a menace to 
the white settlers. On the other hand, the natives needed 

» Col. Rec, IX, 260; XI, 55, 172, etc., MS. Rec. Finance and Currency, 
I, 48. Such items as the following are not uncommon. The Court allowed 
Dr. Carrington 9s. " for medicine given to a sick man at New Haven " 
and to Serjt. John Ball 15s. " for dieting of him for three weeks." Col. 
Rec, IV, 401. 

« Col. Rec, IV, 409, 530, etc; V, 177, 349, etc 

3 Col. Rec, V, 413, 414, 523, etc MS. Rec Finance and Currency, III, 
38, 50, 270, etc; II, 168. 

«Col. Rec, II, 176, 312; IV, 97; V, 353, 529, etc In 1733 the Court 
appropriated the money received from the sale of the seven townships in 
the western lands for the support of schools, and in 1766 the money re- 
ceived from the excise on wines and liquors was similarly given. Col. Rec, 
VII, 459; XII, 463. 



42 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

to be protected from unscrupulous whites. The General 
Court appointed overseers for the different tribes, to 
look after their interests, and appropriated money for 
educating the natives and instructing them in the prin- 
ciples of the Christian religion.^ 

In defraying these various expenses, the General Court 
passed special appropriations for each item as it was 
presented. It does not appear that any attempt was 
made to classify expenses, and pass general appropria- 
tion bills. 

It had been the practice from the first, for the General 
Court to keep a close supervision over the collection and 
expenditure of the public revenue. This was done gen- 
erally by a committee appointed by the General Court, 
to audit the accounts of the treasurer.^ During the 
fourth intercolonial war, a special auditing committee 
known as the Committee of the Pay Table, was appointed 
to adjust the accounts of the treasurer for all expenses of 
a military character.^ 

During the earlier years of the colony's history, the 
settlers were practically unsupplied with metallic cur- 
rency. To supply this deficiency and remove the incon- 
veniences of barter, resort was early made to wampum 
and merchandise as a medium of exchange. Wampum or 
*'peage" consisted of small spiral shells, about an eighth 
of an inch in diameter, and arranged on strings and 
fibres. The shells were either black or white, the value 
of the former being generally twice that of the latter.^ 

1 Col. Rec, VI, 188, 563; VII, 102, 181, 242, etc. This subject will be 
treated more fully in the consideration of Indian aflfairs. 

2 Col. Rec, I, 30, 68, etc.; Ill, 49, 72, etc.; VI, 19, 48, etc. 

3 Col. Rec, X, 366. 

* Weeden, Economic and Social Hist, of New England, I, 32. Bronson, 
Hist, of Connecticut Currency, New Haven Hist. 8oc. Papers, I, 3. The 
fathom of wampum was 60d. worth, and was a variable amount according 
as the value of the beads was fixed by law. If it was six beads to the 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 43 

Used first in their dealings with the natives, these shells 
soon became a recognized currency among the colonists, 
and were exchanged for merchandise, labor and taxes. 
They passed at rates fixed by statute, which were altered 
from time to time as the supply varied. ^ After the mid- 
dle of the seventeenth century, wampum begins to dis- 
appear as a medium of exchange, but in smaller trans- 
actions, and in the more remote settlements, it continued 
in use throughout the seventeenth and into the eighteenth 
century.^ In the more important business transactions, 
and in the payment of taxes, merchandise took the place 
of specie. The articles chosen were wheat, rye, oats, 
Indian corn, peas, beef, pork, beaver, etc. The prices at 
which these articles were to pass were fixed from time to 
time by the General Court. The payment of taxes in 
merchandise, necessitated the maintenance of a colony 
magazine or store house, to keep the products in until 
they should be disposed of.^ Throughout the seventeenth 
and into the eighteenth century until the appearance of 
paper currency, farm products continued to be used in the 
payment of taxes, and for the exchange of commodities.* 

penny then three hundred and sixty beads made a fathom. Weeden, 
Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization, J. H. U. 8., II, 
385. 

1 In 1637 the rate was three beads to the penny, in 1640 four to the 
penny, and in 1642 six to the penny. Col. Rec., I, 13, 61, 79. 

» It was in use as late as 1704 and possibly later. Bronson, op. cit., 4. 
The decline of wampum as a circulating medium was due to the decreasing 
commercial relations of the natives and the whites, and to the increase in 
the quantity of metallic currency which found its way into the colony, 
especially from the West Indies. Weeden, Economic and Social Hist., I, 45. 

3 In 1667 the General Court proposed to " hire a chamber for keeping 
the Country Rate in the respective towns." Col. Rec, II, 64. 

* In 1710 the General Court required rates to be paid in specie or bills 
of credit, but in 1720, and again in 1723 we find a tax levied payable in 
grain. Upon the sinking of the paper currency in 1757 it was found 
necessary to resort to commodities once more in the payment of taxes. 
Col. Rec, V, 157; VI, 223, 431; XI, 9. 



44 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

Some foreign coin found its way into the colony, and 
its exchangeable value was regulated by enactment of 
the General Court. ^ Most of these foreign coins were 
worth far less than their supposed intrinsic value, as a 
result of the washing and paring of coins, which was then 
so common.^ To the foreign coins was added the ''Pine 
Tree Currency" of Massachusetts.^ It is uncertain at 
what time the "Bay Shillings" became common currency 
in Connecticut, but it was probably somewhat before the 
end of the seventeenth century.^ It was not until some 
time after they had become generally current in the 
colony, that they were officially recognized by the General 
Court. By the code of 1702, it was provided that they 
should pass current at the rate at which they were 
stamped. 

The appearance of New England and foreign coins, 
did not displace ' ' country pay " as a means of dis- 
charging debts and paying taxes. As a result, several 
currencies were in existence, and prices of commodities 
were regulated according to the currency offered in pay- 
ment. The following quotation from "The Private 
Journal of Madam Knight, on a journey from Boston to 
New York, in the year 1704," is of interest. "They (the 
people) give the title of merchant to every trader who 
rate their goods according to the time and specie (kind) 

1 In 1643 the Court ordered that " good rialls of | and reix dollars " 
should pass at 5s. Col. Rec, I, 86. The intrinsic value of these coins 
was 4s. 6d. Bronson, op. cit., 22; Dewey, Financial Hist, of the U. S., 20. 
In 1683 the Court ordered that " for the future all pieces of eight Mexicoe, 
pillar and Civill pieces " should pass at six shillings each, and " all good 
pieces of Perue " at five shillings. Col. Rec, III, 119. Mexico pieces of 
eight were worth 4s. 6%d., Seville pieces " old plate " 4s. 6d., " new plate " 
3s. lYgd., and Peru pieces 4s. 5d. Bronson, op. cit., 26. 

2 Bronson, 22. 

» The Massachusetts mint was established in 1652. Felt, Historical 
Account of the Mass Currency, 31. 
* Bronson, op. cit., 19. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 45 

they pay in, viz: pay, money, pay as money, ^ and trust- 
ing (that is they have a pay price, a pay as money price, 
and a trusting price). Pay is grain, pork, beef, etc., at 
the prices set by the General Court that year; money is 
pieces of eight ryals or Boston or Bay Shillings (as they 
call them) or good hard money as sometimes silver coin 
is termed by them, also wampum, (viz. Indian beads) 
which serves for change. Pay as money, is provisions as 
aforesaid, one third cheaper than as the Assembly in 
General Court sets it, and trust, as they and the merchant 
agree for time. Now when the buyer comes to ask for 
a commodity, sometimes before the merchant answers 
that he has it, he says, 'is your pay ready?' Perhaps 
the chap replies yes. 'What do you pay in?' says the 
merchant. The buyer having answered, the price is set ; 
as, suppose he wants a six penny knife; in pay, it is 
twelve pence ; in pay as money, eight pence, and in hard 
money, its own price (value) six pence. "^ 

To all this variety of currency must be added the paper 
currency, which did not make its appearance in Con- 
necticut until five years after the above was written. 

The fluctuation and variation in the value of foreign 
coins at different times, and in the different colonies, 
caused great inconveniences in trade. ^ To remedy this, 
Queen Anne, in 1704, upon recommendation of the Board 
of Trade, issued a proclamation, fixing the value of for- 
eign coins then current in the colonies. In 1707 the proc- 
lamation was passed by parliament, and a penalty of six 

^ Bronson is of the opinion that " pay as money " and " money " were 
one and the same thing. 

2 Quoted in Bronson, 22. 

' The Spanisli milled dollar which took the place of the eight-real piece 
was valued in New England and Virginia at 6s., in New York and North 
Carolina at 8s., in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland at 7s. 6d., and 
in South Carolina at 4s. 6d. Gouge, A Short Hist, of Paper Money and 
Banking, 6. 



46 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPORATE COLONY. 

months imprisonment and 10 pounds fine was to be in- 
flicted upon any one receiving or paying out any of the 
coins, at a higher rate than that fixed in the statute.^ 
From this law came the expression ''Proclamation" or 
"lawful" money, which is met with so frequently in the 
records during the eighteenth century. 

In 1690 paper currency first made its appearance in 
the American colonies.^ It was in that year introduced 
in Massachusetts, to defray the expenses of the expedi- 
tion against Canada. Connecticut did not "follow the 
Bay Horse " until near the close of the second inter- 
colonial war. 

In June, 1709, the General Court, then in session at New 
Haven, enacted the following law: 

"Forasmuch, as by reason of the great scarcity of 
money, the payment of the public debts, and charges of 
this government, especially in the intended expedition to 
Canada, is made almost impracticable; for remedy 
whereof, be it enacted, . . . That there be forthwith im- 
printed, a certain number of bills of credit of this Colony, 
in suitable form from two shillings to five pounds, which 
in the whole shall amount to the sum of eight thousand 
pounds, and no more; which bills shall be indented and 
stamped with such stamps as the Govemour and Council 
shall direct, and be signed by a committee appointed by 
this Court, or any three of them, and of tenor following, 
that is to say 

No. ( ) 20 s. 
This indented bill of 20 shillings, due from the Colony of 

1 Bronson, op. cit., 26. Statutes at Large, 6th Anne, Chap. 30. 

* Felt, op. cit., 49. Traces of paper currency have been found in Massa- 
chusetts as early as 1646. These notes were probably issued by private 
individuals. Of their form and value we know nothing. Proceedings of 
the American Antaquarian Society, April, 1866. Weeden credits John 
Winthrop, Jr., with being the real founder of paper currency in America. 
Weeden, Economic and Social Hist., I, 317. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 47 

Connecticut in New England, to the possessor thereof, 
shall be in value equal to money, and shall be accordingly 
accepted by the treasurer and receivers subordinate to 
him, in all public payments, and for any stock at any time 
in the treasury. Hartford, July the twelfth ; Anno Domini 
1759. By order of the General Court. 

J. C. ' 

J. H. r Committee. 

J. E. 

J 

And so mutatis mutandis for a greater or lesser sum."^ 
For some reason the words "in all public payments" 
were omitted in the first issues of the bills. The fol- 
lowing year (1710) the General Court, probably fearing 
that the omission would discourage their acceptance, pro- 
vided that the bills should ''be as good and effectual to 
all intents and purposes ... as they would have been 
if the said words so omitted as aforesaid, had been in- 
serted fully, and at large in the said bills. "^ To en- 
courage the acceptance of the bills, they were accepted 
''in all public payments" (afterward interpreted by the 
General Court to mean simply payment of taxes) at an 
advance of 12d. in the pound.^ 8,000 pounds were ordered 
in the first issue, 4,000 pounds to be used in defraying 
the indebtedness of the colony, and 4,000 pounds held for 
further disposal. As a fund for securing and redeeming 
the bills, a rate of lOd. in the pound was levied, one half 
to be paid in 1710, and the other half in 1711. Before a 
year had passed after the first issue, there was again a 
"great scarcity of money," and the Court ordered 11,000 

^Col. Rec, V, 111. For reprints of several bills of credit see Memorial 
Hist, of Hartford Co., I, 324, 325. 

* Col. Rec, V, 157. 

''Trumbull states that "in all other payments (other than public pay- 
ments) they were to be received as money." If by this he means that the 
bills were made legal tender he was mistaken. Trumbull, op. cit., I, 474. 



48 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

pounds more of the Bills of Credit to be issued, and as a 
fund for redeeming them, a rate of 12,000 pounds was 
levied to be paid '^within the term of 6 years . . . and 
so much thereof in each of the said 6 years," as the Gen- 
eral Court should order.^ 

From this time on for a number of years, at each ses- 
sion of the General Court, a greater or less amount of 
the bills were issued, and old bills drawn in by taxation 
reissued.^ Every effort was made by the General Court 
to encourage the circulation of the bills. Besides placing 
a premium on them in the pajment of taxes, the Court 
ordered in 1709 that all salaries of officials which had 
formerly been paid in ''country pay" should be reduced 
one third and paid in the bills of the colony, unless ex- 
pressly stated that they were to be paid otherwise.^ 
Again the following year the Court ordered that all rates 
for drawing in the bills of credit should be paid ''either 
in bullion or at the rate of 8 sh. the ounce, troy, or in 
bills of public credit, created as aforesaid, and in no 
other manner."^ By this latter act, "Country Pay" or 
commodities, were excluded from the Treasury in the 
payment of faxes. In 1713 the General Court ordered the 
imprinting of 20,000 pounds in bills of credit on a new 
plate, to be exchanged for the old bills then outstanding, 
which it was discovered had been counterfeited.^ While 

1 Col. Rec, V, 127. 

2 Ibid., V, 182, 226, 228, 252, etc. During the first intercolonial war 
there were issued in all 34,000 pounds in bills of credit, and at the end 
of the war there were still outstanding about 20,000 pounds. Bronson, 
op. cit., 33. Col. Rec, V, 378. 

» Col. Rec, V, 128. 

* Ibid., V, 157. The same year, however, this was modified to read 
instead of bullion " money as it shall generally pass in New England." 
This change was made, probably, because it was found that rating silver 
at 8s. per ounce was contrary to the act of Parliament. Bronson, op. cit., 
33; Col. Rec, V, 166. 

5 Col. Rec, V, 378. The following drastic act was passed for the punish- 
ment of counterfeiters. Any person convicted should have his right ear 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 49 

this issue was ordered exclusively for changing the old 
bills, the Court, from year to year, drew upon the fund 
for ordinary expenses, which necessitated more issues of 
the new bills, when the old ones appeared from time to 
time at the treasury for redemption. Between 1713 and 
1732, 46,000 pounds in bills were issued, all with the osten- 
sible purpose of sinking the old bills, but of this amount, 
nearly 30,000 pounds had been used in defraying colony 
expenses.^ 

Owing to the scarcity of small change, the colony bills 
had been halved and quartered, and the parts circulated 
at a proportionate value. To prevent this mutilation of 
the bills, the General Court ordered that the treasurer 
should not honor any quartered bills.^ The practice, 
however, seems to have continued.^ 

To add to the increasing volume of paper currency, the 
bills of credit of the neighboring colonies, found their way 
into Connecticut. In 1719 these bills received official rec- 
ognition from the General Court, when it was provided 
that the "Country Rate" should be paid in the colony's 
bils of credit at an advance of 5 per cent., or in the true 
bills of Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island or New 
Hampshire, without advance.'* 

It has been noted that the earlier issues of the 
Connecticut bills of credit, were not made a legal 

cut off, be branded with a C on the forehead, committed to the work house 
for life, and be whipped every time he should leave it without permission, 
have his estate forfeited and be debarred from trading. Col. Rec, VI, 467. 

' Bronson, op. cit., 36. In a report of the Board of Trade to the King 
in 1737, it was stated that in 1731, according to the printed Book of Acts 
sent by the colony to the Board, it appeared that there were outstanding 
48,994 pounds 4d. in Bills of Credit from which no fund had been provided 
for redemption. 1 can find no justification for this statement. Talcott, 
Papers Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., V, 166 note. 

' Col. Rec, VII, 39. 

Ubid., VIII, 34, 133. 

* Ibid., VI, 145. " Country Pay " appeared again this year in the pay- 
ment of rates, but three years later it was once more excluded. 



50 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

tender. In 1718, however, the General Court, consid- 
ering that for want of a proper means of exchange, the 
bills had obtained a very general currency in private 
trade and dealing, and to encourage their further use, 
ordered that after November 1, 1718, no debtor should 
have execution passed on his estate if he offered to pay 
his debts in full in the bills of credit, except in contracts 
where it was expressly stated that payments should be 
made in silver or some other medium.^ This was an in- 
genious way of accomplishing by indirection what the 
officials evidently feared to do directly. The colonists 
wanted to obtain all the supposed benefits from the paper 
currency, but still hesitated to come out boldly and de- 
clare the bills a full legal tender. They doubtless felt that 
they were pursuing a course which would not be looked 
upon favorably in England. 

New schemes were continually brought forward for 
increasing the supply of these very convenient bills. 
There was a constant complaint of a "lack of a proper 
means of exchange." Massachusetts in 1714, and Rhode 
Island in 1715, Imd established what were essentially 
colonial land iSooksr Bills of credit of the colony were 
loaned to private individuals on mortgage security, and 
the payment of annual interest, which latter was used to 
help defray the colony expenses. It was not long before 
this plan found favor in Connecticut. In 1726 the Lower 
House of the Assembly proposed the formation of a 
*'bank" similar to those which had been established in 
the neighboring colonies, but the proposition was rejected 
by the more conservative Upper House. Two years later 

^ Col. Rec, VI, 74. The law was made retroactive for all debts con- 
tracted subsequent to July 12, 1709, when the Bills of Credit were first 
issued. The act was to remain in force until 1727, but later this time 
was extended to 1735. Col. Rec, VII, 208. 

" Arnold, Hist, of Rhode Island, 53, 56. Felt, op. cit., 67. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 51 

the Lower House again considered the matter, appointing 
a committee to elaborate a scheme for raising a ''bank" 
of 100,000 pounds. The whole matter, however, was 
blocked in the Upper House, which stated that it did 
not deem it wise to proceed with the plan, in view of the 
fact that complaints were then pending before the King 
in Council, concerning the issuance of bills of credit by 
the ditferent colonies,^ 

The advocates of an expanded currency, however, ac- 
complished their designs in another direction. In 1730 
there was formed in New London an association of some 
sixty merchants, which was incorporated under the name 
of ' ' The New London Society United for Trade and Com- 
merce. "^ This society, in imitation of the colony, soon 
began to issue bills of credit. These bills appear to have 
circulated freely as currency.^ It was not long, however, 
before the colonial authorities took notice of what was 
being done. Gov. Talcott ordered the sheriif of Hartford 
County to summon the society before a special meeting 
of the legislature, to show cause why they should not be 
ordered to refund to the possessors of their bills the sums 
paid for them.^ The General Court decided that the So- 
ciety had exceeded its powers in issuing the bills, and 
its charter was revoked. A law was then passed pro- 
hibiting any similar action by private individuals, or as- 
sociations in the future.^ The question was then con- 
sidered, as to how the almost worthless outstanding notes 

' MS. Rec. Finance and Currency, II, 50, 146, 150. 

^ Col. Rec, VII, 390. 

^ Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 242 et seq. Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., 
IV, 279. A facsimile of a bill of the New London Society is printed in 
Col. Rec, VII, 420. 

* Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., IV, 268. 

5 Col. Rec, VII, 421. An attempt was made to revive the New London 
Society within one month after its dissolution, but the General Court 
voted that " it would not be to for the peace and health of the govern- 
ment " to reestablish it. Ibid., VII, 449. 



52 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

of the company might be drawn in.^ The General Court 
held the members of the Society responsible to the posses- 
sors of the bills, but it was deemed expedient to aid the 
former in sinking the Society bills. With this purpose in 
view, the General Court authorized the issuance of 30,000 
pounds in bills of credit of the colony ; 15,000 pounds were 
placed in the hands of a committee, to be loaned to mem- 
bers of the society, who should hand over to the com- 
mittee society bills to an amount equal to that borrowed 
from the colony. The loans bore interest at 6 per cent., 
and were secured by mortgages on land to twice the 
amount of the loan.^ At the next session of the Assembly 
in 1733 it was ordered that the remaining 15,000 pounds 
should be distributed equally among the five counties. 
A committee in each county was authorized to loan the 
notes to the inhabitants of the towns, in sums from fifty 
to one hundred pounds, secured by mortgages on land, to 
double the amount of the loan. Interest at the rate of 6 
per cent, was charged.^ Another issue of 20,000 pounds 
during the same year appears to have been loaned upon 
the same conditions.^ 

Whatever justification might be offered for loaning the 
colony bills to the defunct New London Society, no valid 
reason can be given for the colonial officials once more 
"trotting after the Bay Horse," in establishing a colony 
land bank. The debtor class, always increasing with a 
depreciating currency, had evidently obtained the upper 
hand, and the demand for a greater "medium of ex- 
change" could not be resisted by the Assembly. The 

1 The amount of the Society's bills in circulation was, probably, about 
10,000 pounds. Davis, A Connecticut Land Bank of the Eighteenth Cen- 
tury, Quarterly Journal of Economics, XIII, 81. 

2 Col. Rec, VII, 450, 452. 
» Ibid., VII, 455. 

« Ibid., VII, 462; Bronson, op. cit., 44. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 53 

colonial authorities had discarded, if they had ever appre- 
ciated, all sound principles of finance. 

From October 1635 to May 1740, no new issues of bills 
were authorized.^ In 1739, began the third of the series 
of intercolonial wars, and with it once more began the 
merry grind of the paper currency mills. In May, 1740, 
4,000 pounds in bills were issued, and the following 
July 15,000 more.2 These were the last of the so-called 
''Old Tenor" bills. 

Possibly it is needless to state that there had been a 
steady, almost a disastrous, depreciation in these bills, 
during the period under consideration. Silver, which in 
1710 was worth 8s. an ounce had risen in 1739 to 26s.^ 
The colonial authorities felt that something must be done 

" In October 1635, 25,000 pounds were issued, to be used in sinking bills 
then outstanding which had again been counterfeited. In 1739 an order 
passed the Upper House for emitting 10,000 pounds in new bills, but it 
was negatived in the Lower House, probably because the amount was con- 
sidered too small. In the same year another complicated scheme for 
loaning Bills of Credit was proposed by the Lower House but negatived in 
the Upper House. Col. Rec, VIII, 17. MS. Rec. Finance and Currency, 
III, 57, 58, 67, 102. 

2 Col. Rec, VIII, 295, 327. In 1740 Gov. Talcott in answer to inquiries 
from the Board of Trade sent a detailed account of the yearly emissions of 
Bills of Credit from the first issues down to 1737. Dr. Bronson analyses 
this table and shows it to be misleading. Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., V, 209 
et seq. Bronson, op. cit., 50. 

9 The following table is of interest as showing the steady advance in 
price of silver, or conversely the steady decline in the currency. 

1708, Sept., one ounce plate worth 8s. currency. 

1710, May, one ounce bullion worth 8s. currency. 

1721, May, one ounce plate worth 12s. currency. 

1724, July, one ounce silver 

1729, July, one ounce silver 

1732, May, one ounce silver 

1739, June, one ounce silver 

1742, Dec, one ounce silver 

1742, Dec, one ounce silver 

1743, Feb., one ounce silver 

1744, Dec, one ounce ai'.ver 
Bronson, op. cit., 52. 



worth 15s. 


currency. 


worth 18s. 2d 


. currency. 


worth 18s. 


currency. 


worth 26s. 


currency. 


worth 26s. 


currency. 


worth 28s. 


currency. 


worth 28s. 


currency. 


worth 32s. 


currency. 



54 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPORATE COLONY. 

to stem this ever-decreasing value of their favorite cur- 
rency. Curiously enough the expedient adopted was the 
issuance of more paper to provide as they once more said 
for the ' ' great scarcity of a medium of exchange. ' ' Rea- 
soning, perhaps, that some mere change in wording of the 
bills, some stronger fiat expression, would in some mys- 
terious manner prevent further depreciation, the General 
Court provided for the emission of the so-called "New 
Tenor ' ' bills. These bills were distinctly stated to be legal 
tender "in all payments and in the Treasury." On the 
face of the bills it was stated that they were "equal in 
value to silver at eight shillings per ounce. "^ 30,000 
pounds in these bills were ordered to be struck off, 8,000 
pounds were used in defraying the colonial expenses, and 
the remaining 22,000 pounds were distributed among the 
countries to be loaned to the freeholders on mortgage 
security of double value, with interest at 3 per cent, an- 
nually. At the outset, this new venture received a check 
by an order sent by the Board of Trade, ordering that the 
legal tender clause be stricken from the bills. This was 
done, and at the same time the court ordered the with- 
drawal of the new bills from circulation, by exchanging 
them for old tenor bills, at the ratio of 2| of the latter, to 
one of the former.^ 

For four years after 1740, no new emissions of bills of 
credit appeared, possibly because it was feared that more 
drastic action would be taken by the home government.^ 

^ Col. Rec, VIII, 319. 

^ Ihid., VIII, 359. 

» In 1740 the House of Commons addressed the King requesting that he 
send orders to the different colonial governors requiring that they should 
assent to no act for issuing Bills of Credit in lieu of money, unless a 
clause be inserted that such act should not take effect until approved by 
the King. The King acted in compliance with this request. Conn. Hist. 
Soc. Colls., V, 245, 296. 

This order could have no effect in Connecticut where the Governor did 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 55 

The continuance of the war with Spain, and, what was of 
greater moment to the colonies, the entrance of France in 
to the struggle in 1744, excused, if it did not necessitate, 
a further resort to paper currency. It is wearisome and 
unprofitable, to note in detail the successive emissions of 
new bills. In all Connecticut issued during the third 
intercolonial war, 131,000 in bills of credit, of which 109,- 
000 were of the so-called * ' New Tenor. ' '^ 

The financial affairs of the colony were fast reach- 
ing a crisis. Nothing could stop the constant and rapid 
depreciation of the paper currency. Silver which could 
be bought in 1739 at 28s. per ounce, in paper, had 
risen in 1744 to 32s. and in 1749 to 55s.^ The credit 
of the colony was utterly ruined; trade and commerce 
were demoralized. Contracts could not be safely made, 
for no one knew what would be the value of the cur- 
rency from day to day. With the close of the war in 
1748, the colony officials began to think of some plan for 
extricating the colony from the intolerable condition of 
affairs. Here again Connecticut followed as she had 
done so often before the lead of Massachusetts.^ It was 
provided by the Assembly, May, 1749, that all money that 
should be received from England to reimburse the colony 

not have the power to approve or disapprove the acts of the Assembly. In 
the then existing condition of affairs, however, the colonial authorities 
probably deemed it wise not to call the attention of the authorities in 
England to the weakness of the executive and the absence of any means of 
imperial control in the colony. 

» The New Tenor bills were not used in ordinary business transactions, 
and did not depreciate as badly as the Old Tenor bills. They came finally 
to be worth in the proportion of three and one half of the latter to one 
of the former. Bronson, op. cit, G4, 65. 

i Ibid., 65. 

3 In 1748 the plan suggested by Thos. Hutchinson was adopted in Massa- 
chusetts. The money which was received from England to reimburse the 
colony for its expenses in the war was used for sinking the Bills of Credit. 
Bronson, op. cit., 66; Felt, op. cit., 124. 



56 . CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

for the expenses of the late war, should be used for sink- 
ing the outstanding bills of credit.^ 800,000 pounds were 
appropriated by Parliament in 1747 to reimburse the 
colonies for their expenses in the Louisburg expedition, 
of which sum Connecticut received some 28,000 pounds.^ 
According to the auditors' report, there were outstand- 
ing over 340,000 pounds in bills of credit.^ The Assem- 
bly had provided that of the amount received by the 
colony from England, one half should be sold for bills of 
credit, and one half for silver coin, the latter to be used 
by the Treasurer in redeeming the bills of credit. All 
bills brought into the treasury were to be burned. To 
sink the remainder of the bills, three three-penny taxes 
were levied, payable in the bills of credit in 1751, 1752, 
and 1753.^ The colony bills that were brought into the 
treasury by taxes, were paid out in discharging the ordi- 
nary colony expenses until 1753. In that year the Assem- 
bly, urged on probably by the further hostile attitude of 
the home authorities, took the final step by ordering that 
all taxes should be paid thereafter in lawful or "procla- 
mation ' ' money, and that those who were forced to pay in 
colony bills, they should be accepted at the rate of 14s. 7d. 
' ' New Tenor ' ' or 51s. ' ' Old Tenor ' ' for 6s. lawful money. 
At the same time, it was ordered that no more of the 
bills should be issued from the treasury for any purpose.^ 

' Col. Rec, IX, 447. 

^Arnold, Hist of Rhode Island, II, 170; Bronson, op. cit., 69. 

' Col. Rec, X, 65. 

* Col. Rec, IX, 447. These taxes seem to have been more than sufficient 
to provide for the remaining bills, for two thirds of the taxes payable in 
1751 and 1752 were abated by the Assembly. Ihid., X, 65, 128. 

• Col. Rec, X, 157. In 1751 Parliament, vphich had been considering 
the subject of colonial currency, enacted a statute prohibiting the Gov- 
ernors of the New England colonies from assenting to any act for the 
issuance of Bills of Credit, except for current expenses which were to run 
for a period not longer than two years, or in cases of emergency for a 
period of five years. Statutes at Large, 14, George II, Chap. 37. 



FINANCE AND CURRENCY. 57 

The colony thus emerged from the paper money craze by 
the simple, though dishonorable, expedient of paying 
one ninth of its obligations, and repudiating the other 
eight ninths. 

Before all of the old bills had been called in, war again 
broke out between England and France, and the colony 
was once more put to it to provide for the extraordinary 
expenses of the government. The system of borrowing 
money without interest, had exploded; but some means 
had to be devised to meet the increasing burden of ex- 
pense, due to the war. The plan adopted was much more 
sound than any which had been previously tried. In 
January, 1755, the Court voted to issue 7,500 pounds in 
interest-bearing treasury notes. In form the notes were 
as follows: 

No. ( ) 20s. 

The possessor of this Bill shall be paid by the Treas- 
urer of the Colony of Connecticut, Twenty Shillings Law- 
ful Money, with interest at 5 per cent, per annum, by the 
8th day of May, 1758. By order of the Assembly at New 
Haven, January 8th, 1755. 

For sinking the bills, a tax of 2d. on the pound was 
granted, payable in the new bills or lawful money, by the 
last day of August, 1757.^ 

In March, 1755, the Assembly again took up the con- 
sideration of the colony's financial condition. There was 
still in the Treasury some 5,000 pounds in gold and silver 
hypothecated for the redemption of the old colony bills. 
In order to liberate this money to defray the colonial ex- 
penses, the Assembly ordered that the Treasurer should 
tender to persons presenting colony bills for redemption, 
interest bearing colony notes, payable in three annual 
installments in the years 1756, 1757 and 1758. Taxes 

I Col. Rec, X, 329. 



58 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

sufficient to sink the notes at maturity were ordered, pay- 
able in lawful money, colony bills, or commodities.^ Dur- 
ing the continuance of the war, frequent resort was made 
to these colony notes for defraying the expenses of the 
government. They were all of the same tenor, bearing 
interest at 5 per cent., and payable at a stated time. 
There is no evidence that payment was postponed on any 
of the notes, or that they were re-issued when once 
brought into the Treasury. In strictness these notes did 
not form a part of the currency, but were in the nature of 
colony bonds, varying in value, as such instruments do 
to-day, according to the time they had to run, the inter- 
est accrued and the confidence of the buyer in the maker 
of the bonds.2 There is, however, evidence that they 
served as money in the discharge of debts. 

After 1764, the emission of these notes ceased until 
1770, when a new issue of 10,000 pounds was ordered, and 
the interest reduced to 2^ per cent. This would indicate 
that the colony's credit had improved. 

The following year the colony inaugurated a new era 
of fiat money; non-interest bearing notes were agian re- 
sorted to, after an interval of twenty-five years.^ Down 
to the Revolution, however, this new venture did not re- 
sult in disaster. The notes were not issued in large 
amounts, were redeemable within two years, and do not 
appear to have depreciated in value. ^ 

^ Ibid., X, 339. 
' Bronson, op. cit., 82. 
s Col. Rec, XIII, 516. 
♦ Bronson, op. cit., 84. 



CHAPTER III. 

Land System. 

When the inhabitants of the three river towns left 
Massachusetts for their new homes upon the banks of 
the Connecticut, they settled upon territory to which they 
had no title, except a squatter's right of possession. In 
the absence of any Royal Charter or grant from the 
New England Council, the colonists early turned their 
attention to strengthening their right of possession, by 
purchasing the claims of the native proprietors. There 
is no evidence that the founders of Connecticut accepted 
the views of Roger Williams, that a valid title could only 
be obtained by purchase from the Indians, but they pos- 
sessed themselves of the native title, as the only one that 
could be obtained under the circumstances. Unquestion- 
ably the colonists were also prompted by a spirit of fair- 
ness towards the Indians, in paying them for their land, 
for even after the granting of the Royal Charter in 1662, 
when the title of the colonists to their land no longer 
rested upon occupation and purchase, there was uniform 
action in extinguishing the Indian title, by purchase and 
treaty.^ 

It was early recognized that much confusion would 
result from indiscriminate purchases of land by in- 
dividuals from the natives. The Indians were none too 
careful about selling the same land several times to dif- 
ferent purchasers, and many conflicting claims resulted.^ 
To avoid such confusion of titles, the colonial authorities 

^Col. Rec, II, 151, 254; IV, 305, 526. 

2 Larned, Hist, of Windham Co., I, 195, 150. 

59 



60 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOEATE COLONY. 

attempted to restrict the purchase of land from the In- 
dians to those who had received the consent of the Gen- 
eral Court. ^ These orders of the General Court, however, 
seem to have been ''honored more in the breach than in 
the observance." It is true that there are instances 
where persons or groups of persons, applied to the Court 
for authority to purchase land from the Indians,'^ but 
unauthorized purchases undoubtedly continued, and it 
must be confessed that the action of the General Court, 
would incline one to believe that it did not consistently 
enforce its own orders.^ 

By the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, practically all the Indian claims to the territory 
of the colony had been extinguished by purchase or 
treaty, some of them several times over.* 

For more than twenty-five years, the colonists of Con- 
necticut held their lands merely by de facto possession 
and native purchase.^ In 1662, however, through the 
efforts of John Winthrop, the younger, a Royal Charter 
was obtained, confirming to the colony not only the land 
which they occupied, but also annexing to it the formerly 
independent jurisdiction of New Haven. The Charter 
granted the land to be held as "of the Manor of East 
Greenwich ' ' in free and common soccage on the condition 

* Col. Rec, I, 402; II, 151; IV, 305. 

» MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, IV, 66, 68. 

' After repeatedly forbidding unauthorized transfers of land from the 
natives, the General Court in 1706 ordered that if any person who had 
made such an illegal purchase should present an account of it to the Court 
no advantage would be taken of it. The following year this act was re- 
pealed. Col. Rec, V, 4, 30. 

* Cothren, Hist, of Ancient Woodbury, 21. 

* I pass by the somewhat mythical claim based upon the Warwick 
patent. For a discussion of this patent see Johnston, Connecticut, 88 et 
seq; Peters, Hist of Conn., 25 et seq.; Hoadley, Warwick Patent, Acorn 
Club Publications, No. 7. , 



LAND SYSTEM. 61 

of the payment of one fifth the gold and silver found in 
the colony.^ 

Prior to the formation of the Fundamental Orders the 
inhabitants of the three river towns appear to have acted 
upon their own initiative in making purchases of land 
from the natives. Neither the Massachusetts Commis- 
sion nor the Court which displaced it seems to have con- 
trolled the granting of land. After 1639, however, all 
unoccupied land became public domain, and by the Fun- 
damental Orders, the right to dispose of such land was 
given to the General Court.^ 

The parceling out of the land of the colony was accom- 
plished in two ways, first, by grants to individuals, and 
second, by grants to groups of individuals. The indi- 
vidual grants, which were very common during the first 
fifty years of the colony's history, were in the nature of 
pensions, salaries, gratuities, or for the encouragement of 
some commercial enterprise.^ These grants were often 
made by the General Court in the most indefinite way, 
allowing the grantee to choose the land wherever he 
pleased, so long as it did not prejudice any former 
grant.* As we approach the end of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, individual grants of land by the General Court be- 
come less common, but do not entirely cease. ^ By far 
the most important manner of dividing the colony lands 
was by means of grants to groups of individuals with the 
object of forming new plantations. These grants were 
usually made in answer to petitions from actual or pros- 

^ Poore's Charters and Constitutions, I, 252 et seq. ; Cheyney, The Manor 
of East Greenwich, Am. Hist Rev., Oct., 1905. 

' Col. Rec, 1, 25. 

3 Ibid., I, 276, 323; II, 200, 214; III, 233. 

* Thus we find 150 acres to be taken up " where it doe not damnify 
the Indians nor ye plantation," and again " where he can find it in Con- 
necticut limits." Col. Rec, I, 340, 372. 

' For grants subsequent to 1700 see MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, III. 



62 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

pective settlers of a new plantation. ^ If the petition was 
approved by the Court, a committee was generally ap- 
pointed to view the proposed plantation, to see if the 
location was suitable, to consider the number of inhabi- 
tants it would accommodate, and to lay out the town plot 
and home lots.^ The General Court might, and often 
did, direct more fully the formation of a new town. It 
was common for the Court to restrict the time in which 
the settlers should occupy and improve their grants.^ 
The manner in which the land should be divided among 
the settlers was at times specified by the General Court. 
Thus it was ordered that each proprietor should have 
''equal and even shares" of the lands in Ridgefield.^ 
In granting the plantation at Litchfield, the Court 
ordered that the township should be divided into 60 
''rights," three of which were to be reserved for pious 
purposes.^ In settling the town of Waterbury, the com- 
mittee of the General Court controlled the plantation for 
five years.^ Add to the above activities of the Court the 
appointment of surveyors to fix the bounds of town 
grants, the settlement of disputes between towns as to 
their respective boundaries, and the occasional minute 
direction in special cases, and we have a substantially 
complete view of the land system, so far as the colony 
was concerned. In short, the land system of Connecticut 
was similar in all respects to that of the other corporate 
colonies of New England.' In these colonies there ap- 
peared no systematic attempt to obtain a revenue from 

' Occasionally the General Court took direct action in settling a town- 
ship without a petition. Col. Rec, V, 180; VI, 63. 
» Col. Rec, II, 210; V, 55, 160. 
3 Ibid., II, 128. 

* Ibid., V, 121. 
5 Ibid., VI, 127. 

* Anderson, Hist, of Waterbury, I, 150. 

' Osgood, American Colonies, I, 425 et seq. 



LAND SYSTEM. 63 

the public domain. Land was granted freely to the 
settlers, and seldom leased or sold by the colony. Quit 
rents and alienation fines formed no part of the revenue 
of the corporate colonies. It is true that during the 
eighteenth century public land was not granted with such 
a free hand in Connecticut as had formerly been the case. 
It became common, in fact even the rule, for the colony 
to require some compensation for land grants,^ but there 
is no evidence that the colony aimed to obtain a per- 
manent revenue by leasing the public lands, nor do any 
officials distinctly charged with the administration of 
the public domain appear. 

We come now to consider the manner in which the 
land granted to groups of individuals was distributed; 
how individual ownership displaced joint ownership. It 
is in this connection that the real importance of the land 
system appears. It is to be expected that the different 
localities in working out an agrarian policy would vary 
in some essential points, and in many details. Such being 
the case, it is difficult to make a general statement as to 
the land policy, which would apply equally to all the 
towns. There was, however, enough similarity of treat- 
ment to justify us in speaking of a land system. Fur- 
thermore, there was sufficient difference between the 
territorial policies of the towns formed during the seven- 
teenth century and of those formed during the eighteenth 
century to warrant us in treating them separately. 

It has been noted that the settlement of a town was 
usually occasioned by a petition from prospective or 
actual settlers. These settlers fomied a reasonably 
definite group, and we are met at the outset with the 
question— were these petitioners granted the land as 

^ The most noteworthy of the sales of public lands was that of the 
seven townships sold at public auction in 1737. Col. Rec, VIII, 134, 170. 
See also Col. Rec, VI, 194; MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, II, 273. 



64 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

proprietors in fee simple, or were they acting merely as 
trustees for the town in its corporate capacity? During 
the first fifty years of the colony's history, the question 
did not appear to be of much importance. In most of 
the towns the grantees included all, or nearly all, the free- 
men of the town, and under these circumstances a town 
meeting would be at the same time a meeting of the pro- 
prietors. As a result it became customary in most of 
the towns during the seventeenth century to make allot- 
ments of land and provide for the regulation of the un- 
divided land in the town meeting.^ The attitude of the 
General Court, moreover, seemed to confirm the view 
that the towns should have the power to regulate their 
common lands. In 1639, in defining the power of towns, 
the General Court stated that the ** Towns of Hartford, 
"Windsor and Wethersfield, or any other Towns within 
this jurisdiction, shall each of them have power to dispose 
of their own lands undisposed of."^ Again, in 1643, the 
General Court ordered that as the condition of the plan- 
tations required that much of the land should be improved 
in common, each town should, before the next meeting of 
the Court, choose seven ''able and discreet men to take 
the common lands belonging to ech of the seurall townes, 
respectively, into their serious and sadde consideration."^ 
As we approach the end of the seventeenth century, 
however, the distinction between the original settlers and 
their descendants, and those who came in after the settle- 

* Hartford Town Votes, 39, 42, 46, et passim; Adams-Stiles, Hist, of 
Wethersfield, I, 95; Andrews, Three River Towns, J. H. U. 8., VII; Allen, 
Hist, of Enfield, passim; Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 174; Colchester, Town 
Rec, passim; Caulkins, Hist, of Norwich, 95; Cothren, Hist, of Ancient 
Woodbury, 145. 

-Col. Rec, I, 36. 

3 Col. Rec, I, 101. It is possible that this referred merely to the 
sequestered town commons, but it does not appear from the records that 
such was the meaning of the provision. 



LAND SYSTEM. 65 

ment of the towns, becomes more marked. Land had in- 
creased in value with the increase in population. The 
number of inhabitants who were not descendants of origi- 
nal settlers was constantly augmented. As a result we 
find developing in most of the towns three distinct classes 
of inhabitants: first, the original settlers or ''proprie- 
tors," their heirs, assigns and successors; second, ad- 
mitted inhabitants of the town, who were not proprie- 
tors; third, transients, who were neither proprietors nor 
admitted inhabitants.^ The first two classes formed the 
active part of the population of the town. The pro- 
prietors were, relatively, a fixed group, while the ad- 
mitted inhabitants were constantly increasing. In the 
natural course of events, the latter would soon come to 
hold the balance of power in the town meeting, and as the 
administration of the land had become a function of the 
town meeting, they would control the distribution of the 
undivided land. 

The proprietors, in order not to lose control of the 
laud, set up the claim that the grant made by the General 
Court, was to the original settlers, their heirs, assigns 
and successors in fee simple, and not to the town in its 
corporate capacity, and that the proprietors should have 
the exclusive right to grant the undivided land in the 
town. In some of the towns where the Proprietors were 
still in the majority, no effective opposition was made to 
their claims,^ but in towns where the non-commoners 
equalled or outnumbered the proprietors, the pretensions 

1 Dr. Stiles in his recent thorough study of Wethersfield makes a four- 
fold division ( 1 ) proprietors, ( 2 ) freemen of the commonwealth, ( 3 ) ad- 
mitted inhabitants of the town not freemen of the commonwealth, (4) 
householders. This classification does not include the transient resident, 
who, though he received scant courtesy from the town, was still a portion 
of the population. Adams-Stiles, Hist, of Wethersfield, I, 41. 

* In Windsor undivided land was granted exclusively by the proprietors. 
Andrews, Three River Towns. 



66 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPOEATE COLONY. 

of the latter were not quietly acquiesced in. In Simsbury, 
as early as 1672, a controversy arose as to whether the 
''outlands" belonged to the original proprietors, or to 
the inhabitants of the town generally. At a town meet- 
ing held in April, 1672, it was voted to divide a portion 
of these lands among the inhabitants of the town; simi- 
lar divisions were also voted in 1680 and 1688, against 
all of which the proprietors protested ineffectually. The 
question again arose in 1719, when a committee appointed 
for the purpose reported, and the town voted, that "the 
right of disposal of common or undivided land, is and 
shall be in all such and them only who can derive their 
right so to do, either from an act of the General Assem- 
bly, and their heirs and assigns, or those who have been 
admitted inhabitants, and their heirs and assigns, or shall 
hereafter be admitted inhabitants with that power and 
right expressly inserted in the town's vote of admis- 
sion."^ To this action of the town the proprietors took 
exception. The town, however, continued to grant the 
undivided land until the action of the General Court sus- 
tained the contention of the proprietors, after which the 
remaining common lands were managed and conveyed 
exclusively by the proprietors. Similar controversies 
were carried on in New London, Canterbury, Ashford and 
other towns. ^ 

It was in connection with the struggle in New London, 
that the question was brought before the General Court in 
1719 for final settlement by petitions from both the town 
and the proprietors.^ The attitude of the General Court 

' Phelps, Hist, of Simsbury, 80. 

' Caulkins, Hist of New London, 263 ; Lamed, Hist, of Windham Co., 
I, 156; Ibid., I, 214 et seq. 

=■^18. Rec. Towns and Lands, III, 174-184. Gov. Saltonstall strongly- 
supported the proprietors of which he was one. See his protest against 
the action of the town in dividing the common lands. MS. Rec. Towns 
and Lands, III, 239. 



LAND SYSTEM. 67 

had been at first, as we have seen, that the towns were 
empowered to regulate and dispose of the common lands. 
The first indication of a change of view on the part of 
the Court was in 1685, when patents were first issued 
to the various towns. ^ In these patents it was stated 
that the land in the towns was granted ''to the said pro- 
prietors inhabitants, their heirs and assigns. "^^ In con- 
firming the patents of several towns in 1703, the follow- 
ing even stronger expression was used: "all and every 
the several above mentioned lands with all rights and im- 
munities contained in the above mentioned patent, shall be 
and remain a full and clear estate of inheritance in fee sim- 
ple to the several proprietors of the respective towns."' 
The next expression of the General Court upon this 
important question, was in answer to the New London 
petitions. When the petition of the town was first pre- 
sented long debates ensued, the Upper House favoring 
the proprietors and the Lower House favoring the town. ^ 
The Court finally ordered that, it ''being a matter of so 
great weight and general concern as to effect the gener- 
ality of the towns, ' ' consideration of the question should 
be postponed until the next session of the Court. ^ At 
the following session it was resolved that the patent to 
the town did ' ' confirm the lands in said township to each 
and every proprietor in such towns, and to such as have 
any distinct propriety there though not living in such 
towns . . . also all lands not divided or disposed to hold 
as tenants in common ; all of which undivided lands were 
confirmed to them, the said proprietors, their heirs and 

1 Probably the reason for the issuance of the patents was to guarantee 
the titles to land that had been granted, before the colony's charter was 
vacated by Quo \^'arranto proceedings which were then pending. 

2 Col. Rec, III, 177. 
» Col. Rec, IV, 443. 

* MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, III, 174 et seq. 
5 Col. Rec, VI, 131. 



68 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

assigns, so that no person by becoming an inhabitant 
afterwards could have any right to dispose of any land 
in said town by voting in a town meeting."^ But the 
General Court ordered that all titles to land which had 
been previously obtained by town votes were to be valid. 

The proprietors having carried their point, in many of 
the towns they took steps to organize themselves in a 
more permanent manner. Proprietors' meetings were 
held distinct from the town meetings, and the regulation 
and disposal of the undivided land was thenceforth con- 
trolled exclusively by the proprietors. The corporate 
character of the proprietors was recognized by the Gen- 
eral Court in a number of acts. The proprietors were 
required to hold a meeting upon the application of at 
least five of their number; they were empowered to levy 
taxes upon themselves, and to choose a clerk duly sworn 
to record their proceedings.^ At a proprietors' meeting 
a moderator and clerk, and usually a treasurer, were 
chosen. Much of the business of the proprietors was 
transacted by means of committees. Thus committees 
were appointed to provide for the division of the common 
lands, to look after the common fence, to search out and 
prosecute trespassers, to survey grants and lay out high- 
ways, etc.^ Attorneys were also appointed by the pro- 
prietors to prosecute and defend all actions brought in 
the name of the proprietors. 

While the proprietors in any given town were, in 
theory, the heirs, assigns and successors of the original 
settlers, and hence tended to become a close corporation, 
in many of the older towns the theory did not agree with 

' Ibid., VI, 189. 

2 Ibid., VI, 25, 379, 424. 

3 See Proprietors Rec. of New Hartford, Norfolk, Canaan, Guilford and 
other towns. 



LAND SYSTEM. 



69 



the facts. Through lack of records in some towns it was 
impossible to discover who were the original settlers, and 
in such cases the taxable inhabitants at a given time were 
reckoned as proprietors.^ Furthermore, the proprietors 
not infrequently added to their numbers. Thus in 1713, the 
proprietors of Colchester voted to add some twenty-four 
persons to the list of proprietors.^ In Waterbury we find 
a distinction made between the original proprietors called 
''Grand Proprietors" and those later admitted called 
' ' Bachelor Proprietors. ' ' The latter shared in the divis- 
ions of common lands, but had no voice in granting land.^ 

We have thus far examined the administration of the 
land system, as it developed in the towns of the seventeenth 
century. The attempt has been made to show that, while 
at first the towns in their corporate capacity regulated 
the territorial policy, by the end of the century the pro- 
prietary system had become general. In many of the 
older towns, however, the greater part of the common 
land had been distributed before the proprietors obtained 
exclusive control, and hence their activity was consider- 
ably restricted. It is when we reach the towns formed 
during the eighteenth century, that we find the system 
of proprietary holdings most fully developed. We come 
now to consider these towns. 

The territory from which the greater number of the 
towns of the eighteenth century were formed was the so- 
called "Western Lands, " covering approximately the pres- 
ent county of Litchfield. All of this vast territory compris- 

* In Guilford the body of the proprietors was fixed by town vote in 
1697, and included all those that were settled planters in 1686. Steiner, 
Hist, of Guilford, 174. In New London such persons as were land holders 
in 1703 when the town patent was granted were considered proprietors. 
Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 263. 

= Colchester, Prop. Rec, April 28, 1713. 

^Anderson, Hist, of Waterbury, I, 280; Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury, 
116. 



70 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

ing over 300,000 acres, had been granted by the Genaj-al 
Court to the towns of Hartford and Windsor, in 16SSi.^ 
This grant was made in anticipation of the loss of the 
charter, and in order to prevent the lands from falling 
into the hands of Andros. Not much attention was paid 
to the territory, until after the opening of the eighteenth 
century. The land was rugged, and other more desirable 
territory was available for settlement. 

The first attempt made by the Hartford and Windsor 
patentees to improve their grant, was in the settlement 
of the town of Litchfield in 1719. The General Court 
while granting the privilege of settling this town, prac- 
tically rescinded, at the same time, the former extensive 
grant to the two towns. ^ The inhabitants of Hartford 
and Windsor, resisted^ this act of the General Court, and 
the title to the lands was in dispute until 1726, when a 
compromise was reached by dividing the territory be- 
tween the two towns and the colony.^ The territory re- 
served to the colony embraced the present towns of 
Canaan, Norfolk, Goshen (including Warren) and about 
two thirds of Kent, while Hartford and Windsor received 
the present towns of Colebrook, Hartland, Winchester, 
Barkhamsted, Torrington, New Hartford and Harwinton. 
These towns may be taken as typical of nearly all the 
towns formed during the eighteenth century, and an ex- 
amination of the system of land administration in these 
towns will suffice as showing the chief characteristics of 
all towns formed during this period. 

In 1732, the towns of Hartford and Windsor made a 
division of their portion of the Western Lands, by which 

» Col. Rec, III, 225. 

"Ibid., VI, 127. 

' Trumbull gives an account of a riot at Hartford caused by the dis- 
pute over the title to this territory. This story, however, has been dis- 
credited. Trumbull, II, 9G; Boyd, Annals of Winchester, II. 

*Ibid., VII, 44, 337. 



LAND SYSTEM. 



71 



the townships of Hartland, Winchester and New Hart- 
ford, and the eastern half of Harwinton, went to Hartford, 
and the townships of Colebrook, Barkhamsted, Torring- 
ton and the western half of Harwinton, fell to Windsor. 
In the same year the General Court authorized the in- 
habitants of Windsor, and the following year the inhabit- 
ants of Hartford, to meet and make partition of their 
land to individual proprietors.^ The taxable inhabitants 
of the two towns were then divided into seven "com- 
panies," each owning a township. The share of any 
individual in a company, depended upon the amount of 
his ratable estate in Hartford or Windsor. 

The manner in which the part of Western Lands reserved 
to the colony was disposed of, and proprietorships created, 
is of interest, as characteristic of the way in which prac- 
tically all the remaining public domain was parceled out. 
In 1737 the General Court ordered that the five town- 
ships on the east of the Housatonic River, and the two 
on the west,^ should be sold at public auction in certain 
specified towns of the colony.^ Six of the seven town- 
ships were divided into fifty-three "rights" or shares.^ 
Three of the rights in each township were reserved, one 
for the use of the ministry, one as a gratuity to the first 
minister, and one for the support of the town school. 
The remaining fifty rights were sold to the highest 
bidders. The Court, however, fixed certain minimum 
prices for each right, ranging from 30 to 60 pounds. Cer- 

' Col. Rec, VII, 387, 445. 

2 The five townships on the east side of the river were Norfolk, Canaan, 
Goshen, Cornwall and Kent; the two on the west Sharon and Salisbury. 

3 Norfolk at Hartford, Goshen at New Haven, Canaan at New London, 
Cornwall at Fairfield, Kent at Windham, Salisbury at Hartford, Sharon 
at New Haven. All the townships seem to have found purchasers except 
Norfolk which was not finally sold until nearly twenty years later. Col. 
Rec, VIII, 135; X, 320. 

* Salisbury was divided into twenty-five rights. 



72 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

tain restrictions were placed upon prospective purchas- 
ers. They were required to be inhabitants of the colony, 
to settle themselves or their agent ^nd live three years 
in the town in which they purchased land, to build a house 
of certain specified dimensions, and clear and fence at 
least six acres of land.^ 

The method thus employed of distributing the public 
land might be termed the ' ' eighteenth century plan, ' ' and 
from it developed certain characteristics which were 
markedly different from those of land system in the 
older towns. Perhaps the most striking distinction in 
this respect between the older and later towns, was the 
appearance in the latter of absentee proprietors, and the 
land speculation incident to such proprietorship. 

In the older towns the proprietors were, to a large ex- 
tent, actual settlers, and their land holdings were confined 
largely to the town in which they lived. In the towns 
formed during the eighteenth century, however, the pro- 
prietors bought land in a township having no intention of 
settling there. The land was purchased merely upon 
speculation, and it was common to find a large part of 
the land in a township change hands before any settle- 
ment had been made.^ Proprietors' meetings were held 
where a majority of the proprietors lived, ^ and this was 
often not in the town of which they were proprietors. 

1 Col. Rec, VIII, 134 et seq. 

* Not one of the 106 original proprietors of Winchester ever dwelt in 
the town, and only one son of a proprietor ever had a permanent residence 
there. Boyd, Annals of Winchester, 31. Of the twelve proprietors of 
Union only one was an actual settler. Lawson, Hist, of Union, 39. Of 
the 41 original proprietors of Sharon about one half became residents. 
Sedgwick, Hist, of Sharon, 24. In 1761 the proprietors certified that of 
the 25,000 acres of land in Cornwall from eleven to twelve thousand acres 
were owned by non-residents. MS. Rec. Towns and Lands, VIII, 278. See 
also Oroutt, Hist, of New Milford, 70; Atwater, Hist, of Kent, 17; MS. 
Proprietors Rec. of New Hartford, 11 et seq. 

3 The meetings of the proprietors of New Hartford were held at Hart- 
ford from 1732 to 1738. The first meetings of the Goshen proprietors were 



LAND SYSTEM. 73 

The distinction between the proprietors' meetings and 
the town meetings, and their spheres of activity, were 
very much more clearly marked in the towns of the eigh- 
teenth century, than was the case in the older towns. 
Seldom or never do we find the town meetings in the 
later towns interfering in the regulation or distribution 
of the common land. The exclusive right of the pro- 
prietors to deal with these questions was generally con- 
ceded from the outset. Disputes between the towns and 
the proprietors did arise, but these were usually concern- 
ing the right of the town to tax the proprietary lands. ^ 
An outcome of the tendency to land speculation was the 
delay which resulted in the settlement of some of the 
towns. Land being held largely for a speculative in- 
crease in value and not for actual settlement, long periods 
of time elapsed between the sale of a township and its 
actual settlement.^ 

The proprietors as a body, in the later as in the older 
towns, continued their activity as long as there remained 
common or undivided land. At first their meetings were 
frequent, but as the successive divisions of common land 
constantly «ybasatisfefid their holdmgs m severalty, their 
activity decreased and meetings were held less and less 
frequently.^ 

held at Litchfield, of the Cornwall proprietors at Hartford, of Norfolk 
proprietors at Simsbury, of the Canaan proprietors at Wethersfield, and 
of the Kent proprietors at Windman. MS. Prop. Rec. of New Hartford, 
Norfolk and Canaan. Hibbard, Hist, of Goshen, 30; Gold, Hist, of Corn- 
wall, 20; Atwater, Hist, of Kent, 22. 

IMS. Rec. Towns and Lands, III, 136, 195; MS. Prop. Rec. of New 
Hartford, August 6, 1744; Lawson, Hist, of Union, 50. 

2 Winchester, one of Hartford's towns in the Western Lands, was not 
settled or divided until twenty-nine years after the division of the Western 
Lands. Boyd, Annals of Winchester, 31. It was nine years after the sale 
of Union before any attempt was made to divide the land among the pro- 
prietors. Lawson, Hist, of Union, 38. 

3 Meetings of the proprietors of Norfolk were held regularly twice, or 
oftener, a year until 1768, then no meeting is recorded until 1804, and then 



74 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOEATE COLONY. 

Thus far in the treatment of the land system, emphasis 
has been laid merely upon the question of administration. 
In this treatment the attempt has been made to show 
that the activity of the colonial authorities in adminis- 
tering the land system was little more than supervisory, 
while the real direction and administration of the land 
was left to the localities. Furthermore that in the towns 
the system of proprietary administration had displaced 
the town administration of land by the end of the seven- 
teenth century. The system of proprietary control which 
became general during the eighteenth century, was in all 
essential points analogous to the administration of the 
land system in the proprietary provinces.^ The pro- 
prietors in the Connecticut towns were a reproduction on 
a smaller scale of the proprietors of Maryland and Penn- 
sylvania. While the elaborate administrative machinery 
of the latter did not appear in any of the Connecticut 
towns, still the aims of the proprietors in each case were 
identical, namely, to obtain a revenue from their lands. 

We come now to consider the manner in which the land 
of a township was distributed among the individual pro- 
prietors. Here again a distinction will be made between 
the earlier and later towns. 

The character of the land in any township varied ac- 
cording to its location and topography. In most of the 
older towns which were situated on or near rivers or 
streams, the land might be classified roughly under the 
following heads : (1) Meadow or marshy land ; (2) cleared 
upland; (3) uncleared or wooded land. Upon the cleared 

at intervals of ten years or more until 1856. Meetings of the Canaan pro- 
prietors were held at intervals of two or three months until 1765, then 
irregularly until 1804. MS. Prop. Rec. of Norfolk and Canaan. See also 
Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 263 ; Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, 92 ; Steiner, 
Hist, of Guilford, 175. 

1 Osgood, American Colonies, II, 16 et seq. 



LAND SYSTEM. 75 

upland was usually located the town plot, home lots, and 
planting grounds. The meadow furnished hay and pas- 
turage, while in the wooded land were pastured the swine, 
sheep and young cattle.^ 

The first step in the settlement of a town was the laying 
out of the town plot and the assignment of home lots. 
This, as we have seen, was often done by a committee of 
the General Court.^ The home lots varied greatly in size 
in the different towns, and often within the same town. 
In Guilford they ranged from 1 to 10 acres; in Wall- 
ingford and Enfield they were uniformly 10 or 12 acres; 
in Litchfield 15 acres, while in Woodbury the inhabitants 
were divided into six ' ' ranks, ' ' the home lots of the differ- 
ent ranks being 25, 20, 18, 16, 12 and 10 acres. ^ Generally 
the location of a person's home lot was determined by 
chance, but not infrequently the minister or other promi- 
nent settler would be allowed first choice.^ After the 
home lots had been granted, the upland and meadow was 
subject to grant. Here again the division was usually 
made by lot. The circumstances which determined the 
size of a person 's home lot, as well as his share of meadow 
and upland, varied in different towns. Occasionally, 
though not often, a rigid equality was observed in the 
assignment of home lots and other land.^ Generally, in 
the earlier divisions, an attempt was made to proportion 
a person's share to his investment, or activity in forming 
the plantation, or his ability to advance the interests of 
the community. As time passed, the amount of a per- 
son's taxable estate became the common index for de- 

^ Osgood, American Colonies, I, 437. 

^Col. Rec, II, 210; V, 55, 160. 

sSteiner, Hist, of Guilford, 49; Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 81; Wood- 
ruff, Hist, of Litchfield, 18; Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, passim; Cothren, 
Hist, of Ancient Woodbury, 39. 

* Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 59. 

5 Col. Rec, V, 55, 121; Andrews, Three River Towns, J. H. V. S., VII. 



76 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

termining his share in the undivided lands. ^ In Walling- 
ford the whole population was divided into three "ranks." 
The persons in the first "rank" paid double the amount 
of taxes of those in the lowest ' ' rank, ' ' and one third more 
than those of the middle ' * rank. ' ' Land was then divided 
among the ranks in the proportion of 4, 6, and 8.^ In 
Guilford, in the fourth division of land, the rule was that 
there should be given one acre of land for every pound in 
the list, 18 acres for each male child, and 10 acres for each 
woman or female child.^ 

There appeared in some of the towns a desire to prevent 
too large an accumulation of lands in the hands of a few 
persons. In the "Articles of Association and Agree- 
ment, ' ' entered into by the planters of Waterbury, it was 
provided that no person should subscribe to more than 
100 pounds' allotment.^ In Guilford it was provided 
that no one should put in his estate above 500 pounds to 
"require accommodation in any division of lands. "^ 

Seldom, or never, was all the undivided land of a town 
granted in one division; successive divisions were made 
as occasion demanded. As a result it was common to 
find a person's estate distributed about the town in a 
number of small tracts." 

Besides the regular division of land in which all, or 
a majority, of the inhabitants shared a large number of 
individual grants appear in the records of the different 
towns. These grants were made sometimes to accommo- 

» Norwalk Town Records, December 12, 1687 ; Andrews, Three River 
Town, J. E. V. 8., VII; Lamed, Hist, of Windham Co., I, 37. 

2 Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 81. 

3 Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 173. 

* Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury, 8. 

5 Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 49. 

8 One Isaac Gleason possessed some twelve separate portions of land 
in different parts of the township of Enfield. Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, 
137 et seq.; Compare Osgood, American Colonies, I, 449. 



LAND SYSTEM. 



77 



date new settlers, at others to equalize a person's share 
in a regular division because of deficiency in the quality 
of the land, and again to poor settlers that did not share 
in the general distribution.^ 

A result of the manner of dividing land which has 
just been described was that a considerable portion of the 
land would remain for a greater or less period of time 
undivided. The fencing and regulation of this common 
land was an important function of the town or proprie- 
tors' meetings. Furthermore, it was customary, when a 
given portion of common land had been divided among 
the proprietors, to allow the land to remain in one com- 
mon field. Each owner improved his own part of the 
common field in his own way, and after the crops had been 
removed, it was the custom to depasture the field, allowing 
each owner to turn in a number of cattle proportioned to 
his acreage of land in the field." Of the common fence 
each proprietor was required to build and keep in repair 
an amount proportioned to the amount of his holding m 
the field. The fences were viewed at regular intervals by 
fence viewers, and fines were imposed on those proprietors 
who failed to keep their portion in repair.^ Besides the 
proprietary fields which lay in common, there were the 
town ''commons." The latter were certain amounts of 
land sequestered by vote of the town or proprietors for 
the use of the town generally. These commons furnished 
pasturage, firewood, timber, stone, etc., to the inhabitants 
of the town without any reference to their proprietary 
ownership. These commons were maintained in some 
towns for many years, but finally were divided as the 

1 Hartford Town Votes, 197, 212, 238; Derby Rec, 28, 29, 78, etc.; 
Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, 283. 

2 Adams-Stiles, Hist, of Wethersfield, I, 113; Eggleston, Land System 
of the New England Colonies, J. H. U. 8., IV, 594. 

3 Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 246. See a good description of common 
fields and fences in Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury, 47 et seq. 



78 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

other proprietary lands. ^ The maintenance of common 
herds and herdsmen was a characteristic accompaniment 
of the system of common fields. The cattle and sheep of 
a town were placed in one or more herds under the charge 
of regularly chosen town herdsmen and shepherds.^ 

An interesting feature of the land system of the older 
towns was the restrictions which were placed upon the 
right of an individual to alienate his land. As the entire 
right of commoners both in the divided and undivided 
lands might be sold or transferred, it was deemed neces- 
sary in order to prevent undesirable persons from becom- 
ing land holders and possible inhabitants of the town, to 
restrict the right of a person to dispose of his land at 
will. In 1659 the General Court provided that no person 
should sell his land until he had first offered it to the 
town in which the land lay, and the town had refused to 
purchase it.^ To this general enactment the towns added 
other restrictions. From the first, Hartford had required 
the consent of the town to the sale of lands.* In Enfield 
a person was required to occupy his grant of land seven 

^Adams-Stiles, Hist, of Wethersfield, I, 113 et seq. ; Bronson, Hist, of 
Waterbury, 79 et seq. An interesting controversy occurred over the 
division of the town commons in Hartford in 1754. The descendants and 
successors of the " Ancient Proprietors " claimed the right to divide the 
commons among themselves, and proceeded to lay out a division. The 
" Inhabitants Proprietors," or tax paying inhabitants, disputed this 
division and proceeded to lay out the commons to the taxable inhabitants. 
This soon produced a number of suits in the courts to determine the 
title. After various decisions, generally in favor of the Ancient Pro- 
prietors, a compromise was reached by which the town purchased the 
rights of the Ancient Proprietors. The land was then distributed, prob- 
ably, among the taxable inhabitants. MS. Documents in the library of 
the Conn. Hist. Soc. 

^ In New London the cattle were placed in two herds each with a 
keeper. Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 82. See also Allen, Hist, of 
Enfield, I, 328; Steiner, Hist of Guilford, 240. 

» Col. Rec, I, 351. 

* Hartford, Town Votes, February 21, 1636. 



LAND SYSTEM. 



79 



years, and also obtain the consent of the town before he 
could sell it.^ 

Coming now to the divisions of land in the towns formed 
during the eighteenth century. It will be remembered 
that it was usual during the eighteenth century for the 
General Court to sell townships instead of freely grant- 
ing them. These townships, as we have seen, were usu- 
ally divided into a certain number of ''rights," each 
right entitling the purchaser to an equal share in the 
land of the township. Thus the basis for the division of 
land was exclusively investment, not ability or taxable 
estate, as had been common in the older towns. Naturally 
this resulted in much greater uniformity in the size of 
home lots and other holdings. The successive divisions 
of land followed each other with greater rapidity in the 
later than in the older towns.- The frequent transfer of 
land holdings was a feature of the land system in the 
towns of the eighteenth century. Oftelv an entirely new 
set of proprietors would participate in the third and later 
divisions of common lands, than had taken part in the 
first division. Common fields, fences, and herds were 
much less a feature of the town economy of the later than 
of the earlier towns. This was due in part to the fact 
that the colonists had emerged from the primitive condi- 
tions of land cultivation, but more largely to the fact 
that in many of the later towns the proprietors being 
non-residents or speculators, did not improve their 
holdings. 

1 Allen, Hist, of Enfield, I, 62. See similar provisions. Caulkins, Hist, 
of Norwich, 102; Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 80; Cothren, Hist, of 
Ancient Woodbury, 40. 

2 There were twelve divisions in Canaan, eight of them in the first 
seven years after the settlement of the town. In Norfolk there were eight 
divisions, in New Hartford five, in Kent ten and New Milford fourteen, 
most of them at short intervals. MS. Prop. Rec. of Canaan, Norfolk and 
New Hartford; Atwater, Hist, of Kent, 17; Orcutt, Hist, of New Mil- 
ford, 13. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Military Affairs. 

The organization and administration of the militia was 
one of the many functions of the Legislature. Prior to 
the formation of the Fundamental Orders, the Massachu- 
setts committee had assumed as full control over military 
as over civil affairs. Watches were ordered, the posses- 
sion of arms and ammunition was required, and regular 
trainings were instituted.^ The *'Courte" which dis- 
placed the Commission, likewise exercised full sway in 
military affairs. Its first act was to declare ' ' an offensiue 
war" against the Pequot Indians.^ The ** Fundamental 
Orders" did not specify the regulation of military affairs 
as one of the functions of the General Court, but it was 
comprehended under the general grant of power ' ' to make 
laws and repeal them." The terms of the charter were 
more specific in dealing with this subject. It was stated 
that the ** Chief Commanders, Governors and Officers" 
of the colony could assemble '*in Warlike posture" the 
inhabitants ; appoint and commission officers to command 
them; repel invasion by sea and land, and declare mar- 
tial law when occasion should require.^ It will be noted 
that a strict interpretation of these provisions would place 
the control of the militia in the hands of the executive, 
and such it would be reasonable to suppose was the in- 
tention of the authorities in England. In the colony no 
such meaning was placed upon the words, and the power 

^ Col. Rec, I, 2, 3, 4. 
== Ibid., I, 9. 
^ Ibid., II, 9. 

80 



MILITAKY APFAIKS. 81 

of the Legislature in the administration of military affairs 
was in no respect lessened. 

In times of actual conflict, the General Court found it 
necessary to delegate its powers of military administration 
to special committees or "Councils of War." The first 
mention of such a body was in 1663, when the General 
Court, in anticipation of trouble with the Dutch at New 
York, appointed a committee to act '4n all necessary 
concernments, both military and civil," in the interval of 
the General Court. In strictness this was not distinctly a 
* ' Council of War. ' '^ Again in 1665 the General Court ap- 
pointed a committee, in anticipation of a Dutch invasion,^ 
to order the militia in the interval of the court. The follow- 
ing year a similar committee was appointed. These were 
called ''Committees of the Militia," and there appears 
to have been at least one such committee in each count\y.^ 
The threatened invasion did not materialize, and it does not 
appear that the committees were called upon to perform 
any important duties. In 1673, once more in anticipation of 
war with the Dutch, the first distinct * ' Councell of Warr ' ' 
was created. It was composed of the Governor or Deputy 
Governor, and assistants, with five military ofiicers. It was 
empowered to establish and commission officers, proclaim 
martial law, and to organize and direct the contemplated 
expedition to Long Island.^ During Philip's war, the 
Council of War seems to have been merged in the Gov- 
ernor's Council, which took an active part in directing the 

^ For the sake of clearness it might be well to note again the distinction 
between the Governor's Council and the Council of War. Both might and 
did exist at the same time. The latter was created only in times of 
danger and had purely military powers, while the former existed in both 
peace and war and might exercise both military and civil powers. Col. 
Rec, IV, 442. 

^ This was the threatened invasion of De Ruyter. Smith, Hist, of New 
York, I, 37. 

3 Col. Rec, II, 21, 44, 69, 182. 

* Ibid., 11, 219, 220. 



82 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

military operations during that struggle. This was true 
also during the first of the intercolonial wars.^ At the 
opening of the second intercolonial war, however, a dis- 
tinct Council of War again appears.^ In 1704 were cre- 
ated County "Committees of Safety" which were em- 
powered to "consult, advise, direct and comand in all 
affairs proper for a comittee of saftie in time of warre." 
These committees appear to have looked to the particular 
defence of the county frontier.^ During the third and 
fourth intercolonial wars, both the general and county 
councils continue as a feature of the military ad- 
ministration.^ 

While the powers conferred upon the various commit- 
tees or councils were broad, they were always under the 
control and direction of the General Court. The latter, 
whyfen in session, was constantly active in disposing and 
directing the military forces, and issuing orders to the 
Council of War.^ 

In connection with the control and direction of the 
colonial militia, an interesting and important controversy 
arose toward the end of the seventeenth century, which 
continued at intervals throughout the colonial period. As 
will be seen, the wars in which the colony was involved 
during the first fifty years of its history, were merely local 
Indian struggles, which, at most, required only the com- 
bined activity of the New England colonies. With these 
wars the authorities in England were not immediately 
concerned. No aid was received from the mother country, 

1 Ibid., II, 261, 270, etc.; IV, 6, 14, 18, etc. 

2 Ibid., IV, 442, 458. 

3 In appointing the Committee of War for Hartford Co., the General 
Court stated that it should have power to send out what soldiers were 
needful, not exceeding sixty except in case of invasion, to defend the 
frontiers and to appoint officers for such soldiers. Col. Rec, V, 33. 

*Ibid., IX, 30, 75; X, 319, 334. 
Ibid., IV, 349; V, 85; IX, 71. 



MILITARY ATFAIRS. 83 

and no attempt was made by the home government to direct 
the military affairs of the colonies, either by an appoint- 
ment of a commander-in-chief or by the dispatch of instruc- 
tions. The colonists were left alone to work out their own 
salvation. With the advent of the intercolonial wars in the , 
last decade of the seventeenth century, however, a wholly 
different condition of affairs appeared. These wars were 
much more than purely local struggles affecting New 
England. Besides being on a much larger scale than any 
of the previous wars, they were destined to decide the 
colonial supremacy of two of the leading European na- 
tions. In these wars the authorities in England took an 
immediate and active interest. At the outset it became 
apparent that any efficient military activities requiring 
long and continued service would be impracticable, if not 
impossible, under the system of divided authority which 
obtained in the colonies, and particularly in the corporate 
colonies of New England, where there were no royal 
officials to carry out the orders of the home government. 
With a view to obtaining some measure of cooperation 
among these colonies, at the opening of the first inter- 
colonial war Governor Fletcher, of New York, and Gov- 
ernor Phips, of Massachusetts, were authorized to com- 
mand the militia of Connecticut.^ Phips did not seek to 
enforce this part of his commission, and it was soon with- 
drawn.- Fletcher was more persevering. He arrived in 
New York in 1692, and came to Hartford in October of 
the following year, to publish his commission. The de- 
mand of Fletcher was submitted to the General Court 

' Trumbull, op. cit., I, Appendix XXV ; R. I. Col. Rec, III, 296 ; Docu- 
ments Relating to the Colonial History of N. Y., Ill, 827. 

* Phips wrote to the Governor of Connecticut acquainting him with his 
commission, and the Court answered, that having received no commands 
from his Majesty concerning the matter, they would maintain their 
chartered rights. Col. Rec, IV, 77; MS. Rec. War, II, 158, 159, 162. 



84 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPOEATE COLONY. 

then in session, which body replied, ' ' that finding in your 
Excellencies Commission no Express, Superseding of the 
Commission of the Militia in our Charter ... we cannot 
but conceive it our duty ... to continue the militia as 
formerly ; till by our Agent now sent for in England, we 
shall receive further Orders from Their Majesties, "^ The 
determined stand taken by the colonists caused Fletcher 
to attempt to conciliate them. He offered to place the 
command of the militia under Governor Treat, and further 
stated that '4ie has neither the power or intention to in- 
vade any of their civil rights," but added that ''I may 
assure you that I will not set a foot out of the colony till 
I see an obedience paid to this commission by all such as 
are loyal subjects of his majesty, and will distinguish the 
rest."^ There is a more than doubtful tradition related 
by Trumbull of the strenuous manner in which Fletcher 
was treated.^ However, the Colonel reached the conclu- 
sion that it would be useless to force the matter further, 
and he returned to New York without having accomplished 
his object. 

In the meantime Fitz John Winthrop had gone to 
England to petition the King to allow Connecticut to re- 
tain control of her militia.* Within a few weeks the 
Privy Council, on advice of the Lords of Trade, limited 
Fletcher's right over the Connecticut troops to the extent 
of including in his command, 120 men to be furnished by 
Connecticut ' ' at all times during the war. ' ' ^ 

1 Col. Rec, IV, 113. 

2 Ibid., IV, 114. 

3 Trumbull, I, 393. Compare Palfrey, Hist, of New England, 226 note; 
Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., IV, 69 et seq.; Calendar of State 
Papers, America, 1693-1696, particularly Col. Bayard's account of 
Fletcher's proceedings at Hartford. 

♦ Calendar of State Papers, ibid., 277; Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of 
N. Y., IV, 102; Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 5th Series, VIII, 327, 330. 

5 Calendar of State Papers, ibid., 283 ; Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 5th Series, 
IX, 176; Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., 103 et seq. 



MILITAEY AJ'FAIRS. 85 

Lord Bellomont's commission,^ like those of Pliips and 
Fletcher, included the command of the Connecticut militia, 
but he made no attempt to enforce this part of his com- 
mission. In most, if not all, the commissions of the suc- 
ceeding Governors of New York, a clause was inserted 
vesting in them the command of the Connecticut militia. 
Usually the Governors made no attempt to enforce this 
power. Occasionally, however, the matter was brought 
to the attention of the Connecticut officials. Lord Corn- 
bury, in a letter to the Board of Trade, asked for a com- 
mission to nominate the militia officers of Connecticut, 
and also suggested that an act of Parliament be passed 
for regulating the militia in all the colonies.^ Neither 
of these suggestions was acted upon by the home govern- 
ment. Governor Burnet, in 1722, seems to have sent a 
demand for the command of the militia, but with no ap- 
parent result.^ As late as 1766 we find Governor Moore, 
of New York, attempting to enforce this part of his com- 
mission, only to meet with as little success as his pre- 
decessors.* 

The possession of arms and ammunition by all adult 
males, and, with some exceptions, universal military ser- 
vice lay at the basis of the militia system of the colony.' 

1 New Hampshire Prov. Papers, II, 343. Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, 
of N. Y., IV, 261. 

*Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. ¥., IV, 884, 912; V, 60. 

'Col. Rec, VI, 334; MS. Rec. War, III, 177. 

* Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., VII, 818, 819. 

5 At first all male persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty, except 
Commissioners and church officers, were required to train. The following 
exemptions were later made. Deputies to the General Court during their 
term of service, constant seafaring men, Indians and negro servants, 
assistants, clerks of the trained-bands, transient persons, persons over fifty- 
five years of age (later fifty years), allowed attorneys, the rector and 
students of Yale college, justices of the peace, masters of art, allowed 
physicians and surgeons, schoolmasters, one miller for each grist mill, 
constant herdsmen, sheriffs, constables, constant ferrymen, lame or other 
disabled persons. Col. Rec, I, 15, 62, 316, 349, 350; II, 229; III, 83; V, 
83; VII, 344; VIII, 36, 379. 



86 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

During the early years of the colony's history, the expense 
of furnishing arms and ammunition to the militia fell 
upon the individual or the locality where he resided.^ 
Large numbers of enactments might be cited, which aimed 
to enforce the possession of arms and ammunition in the 
various towns. With the advent of the larger military 
activities of the latter part of the seventeenth and eight- 
eenth centuries, the duty of supplying of arms and ammu- 
nition became more and more a function of the colonial 
authorities. 

The earliest and throughout the most important branch 
of the militia was the * * trained bands ' ' or infantry com- 
panies. At first all persons in a town, liable for military 
service, were formed into the ' ' trained band ' ' of the town. 
With the increase in population, the militia in the larger 
towns was divided into two or more companies.^ There 
appeared to be considerable pride, possibly some jeal- 
ousy, concerning the precedence of the ''trained bands" 
of the different towns. In 1662 the General Court or- 
dered that the Hartford ' ' trained band ' ' should have the 
"prehemenence" of all the companies in the colony; fol- 
lowed by the companies of Windsor, Wethersfield and 
Farmington in the order named.' In 1674 it was pro- 
vided that the trained bands of the county towns should 
rank first in the county, except where the Major should 

1 At first every person liable to military service was required to have 
a musket, bandoleers, two pounds of powder and one hundred and twenty 
bullets. Col. Rec. I, 3, 15, 542. The match-lock and pike, which were the 
weapons in common use at first, had almost disappeared by the end of the 
seventeenth century, being displaced by the fire-lock musket, carbines and 
pistols. Osgood, op. cit., I; Col. Rec, VIIl, 379. 

2 The trained-band, eventually, came to consist of sixty-four men be- 
sides officers. If there was more than one company in a town they were 
often called the East Company, West Company, etc. Col. Rec, VIII, 381; 
MS. Rec. Militia, I, passim. 

3 Col. Rec, 1, 390. 



MILITABY AFFAIRS. 87 

have a ''peculyer" company, in which case it should 
lead at all general musters.^ 

The first mention of troopers in Connecticut was in 
1657, when the Court authorized the listing of such as 
desired to form a troop of horse. The following year 
some thirty-seven names of persons living in the three 
towns of Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, were 
presented to the Court and confirmed as troopers.^ 
There was no considerable increase in the number of 
troopers during the seventeenth century. In 1680 there 
were but sixty in the whole colony, although it was 
stated that plans had been formed for raising three 
more troops of forty men each, one in each county.^ By 
the general act reorganizing the militia, adopted in 1739, 
it was provided that there should be a troop of not more 
than sixty-four men, including officers, attached to each 
of the thirteen regiments into which the militia was 
divided. Besides the regular troopers, mention is made 
of dragoons. These appear to have been certain picked 
men mounted for special service in times of danger.^ 

As early as 1642 we find the General Court providing 
an "Artillary Yard" where the artillery company should 
train. The records are silent as to the character and size 
of this body, and it probably soon disappeared as a sepa- 
rate organization.^ 

1 Col. Rec, II, 238, 

2 Ibid., I, 299, 309. In New Haven there had been one small troop of 
horse which seems to have disappeared after the union with the River 
Towns. N. H. Col. Rec., II, 173, 218, 302, etc. The equipment of a 
trooper consisted of a horse, saddle, bridle, holsters, carbine, belt and 
swivel, a case of pistols, a sword or cutlass, flask or cartridge-box, one 
pound of powder, twenty flints, a pair of boots and spurs. Col. Rec, 
VIII, 380. 

3 Col. Rec, III, 295; MS. Rec. Foreign Correspondence, I, 19. 
♦Col. Rec, II, 267; IV, 19. 

5 Col. Rec, I, 71. In New Haven there had been an auxiliary company 
of artillery which probably disappeared after the union. Levermore, The 
Republic of New Haven, J. E. V. 8., VI, 56. 



88 CONNECTICUT AS A COKPORATE COLONY. 

The officers of the trained bands and troops were 
chosen by the members of the company or troop, and con- 
firmed by the General Court. ^ Some special mention 
needs to be made of the duties of the clerk. He it was 
that called the roll of the company on training days, noted 
any defects in arms and ammunition, and distrained fines 
for any defects. He was required to keep a list of the 
soldiers and officers in his company, and report the same 
to the chief county officer, and later to the chief regimental 
officer.^ 

During the seventeenth century, the militia of Con- 
necticut was not distinctly regimented. Just before the 
opening of King Philip's War, however, the trained 
bands in each county were combined for purposes of gen- 
eral training, and the combined forces were spoken of as 
"regiments." These general trainings were under the 
direction of Majors, who were, practically, regimental 
officers.^ 

During the Andros regime no material change was 
made in the organization of the militia, except that 
Andros assumed supreme command of all the military 
forces. For some reason not apparent, there seemed to 
be a prejudice against any reorganization of the militia 
which would disturb the time-honored trained bands of 
the towns. Possibly it was local pride or jealousy which 
blocked the way to a more efficient organization of the 
colonial militia. All explanations must, however, be 
largely conjectures, for the records throw no light on the 
matter. 

' Col. Rec, I, 151. The officers of an infantry company were, usually, 
a captain, lieutenant, ensign, one or more sergeants and corporals, and a 
clerk. The officers of a troop were a captain, lieutenant, ensign, cornet, 
quartermaster, sergeants, corporals, and a clerk. Col. Rec, VIII, 381-383. 

Ubid., I, 542; V, 165; VIII, 379. 

* Col. Rec, II, 238. There appeared also the Sergeant Majors, who 
occupied the position of Lieutenant Colonel. Col. Rec, III, 61; IV, 51; 
Conn. Hist. Soc Colls., IV, 357. 



MILITAEY APFAIRS. 89 

In 1722 the question of the appointment of Colonels 
and Lieutenant Colonels in the different counties was con- 
sidered by the General Court. The matter was however 
laid over until the following session, when no further 
action seems to have been taken. ^ Between 1722 and 
1727 a number of attempts were made to regiment the 
militia, but they were usually defeated in the Upper 
House.2 Again in 1735 a definite plan for dividing the 
militia into thirteen regiments, proposed by a joint com- 
mittee of the two houses, was voted down in both houses.^ 
It was not until the threatened outbreak of the third 
intercolonial war (1739) that the act reorganizing the 
militia system was adopted by the General Court."* This 
act provided that the Governor should be Captain Gen- 
eral, and the Deputy Governor, Lieutenant General of 
all the military forces of the colony. The militia was 
divided into thirteen regiments, each commanded by a 
Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and Major, appointed by the 
Assembly, and commissioned by the Governor. To each 
regiment was to be attached a troop of horse not exceed- 
ing sixty-four men and officers. 

With the increase in population, and the settlement of 
new towns, additional regiments were formed. In 1767 
the fourteenth regiment was organized, in 1769 the 
fifteenth, in 1771 the sixteenth, and in 1774 the seven- 
teenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and 
twenty-second.'^ 

The duty of supplying arms and ammunition to the 
soldiers, in times of war, devolved upon the Treasurer.^ 

1 Col. Rec, VI, 335, 361. 

= MS. Rec. Militia, I, 202, 210, 303, 349, 362. 

» Col. Rec, VIII, 277 note. 

*IUd., VIII, 277. 

'Ibid., XII, 607; XIII, 238, 512; XIV, 261, 328. 

6/6id., II, 464; IV, 349; V, 85; IX, 71. 



90 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

The same officer generally performed the duty of Com- 
missary General in distributing food to the soldiers.^ It 
was customary for the General Court to appoint special 
commissaries, or a committee of commissaries for each 
expedition.^ 

The colonial militia, organized in the manner indicated, 
was subject to frequent training, particularly during the 
early years of the colony's history. Soon after the settle- 
ment of the colony, it was provided that the train bands 
should be exercised once a month; unskillful persons 
oftener.^ This was found to place too great a burden on 
the inhabitants, and the number of days was reduced to 
ten in a year, then to six, and finally to four.* In addi- 
tion to the company trainings, general trainings of all 
the militia, and later regimental trainings were provided 
for. * Absence from trainings, defects in arms and ammu- 
nition, disobedience of orders, and other breaches of dis- 
cipline, were punished by the infliction of fines, or severer 
forms of punishment.^ The system of watching and 
warding which in time of peace was an adjunct of the 
police force, became in time of danger, an important part 
of the military organization. The watch was maintained 
during the night, and if need be during the day also. It 

nbid., II, 453, 506; X, 445. 

nUd., IV, 458; VIII, 324; IX, 89; XI, 124; MS. Rec. War, IV, 68, 71, 
etc. 

3 Col. Rec, I, 4. 

* Ibid., I, 15, 30; IV, 250. In 1761 the number of trainings was re- 
duced to two days a year, but three years later the old law was reestab- 
lished. Col. Rec, XII, 248, 607. In anticipation of the Revolution twelve 
half-day trainings yearly were provided. Ibid., XIV, 32. 

* In 1644 it was provided that there should be a general training of 
all the militia once in two years. For the purpose of such general train- 
ings the militia was organized by counties. In the act regimenting the 
militia it was ordered that there should be regimental trainings once in 
four years. Col. Rec, I, 266; II, 238; VIII, 384. 

* For a detailed and interesting list of such punishments see Col. Rec, 
II, 292. 



MILITABY ATFAIES. 91 

was the duty of the watch to look out for any sudden 
attack by the Indians, or other enemies, and in case of 
danger to give the alarm by a prearranged signal.^ 

The question of providing permanent fortifications for 
the coast towns of the colony, had early been considered 
by the colony officials. The first of the coast towns to be 
fortified was Saybrook. Some rude works had early 
been constructed there, to keep it from falling into the 
hands of the Dutch.^ In 1644 Connecticut purchased the 
town and fortification from George Fenwick, one of the 
Warwick patentees. The other fort mentioned in the 
records during the seventeenth century, was that at New 
London. This first comes into prominence at the opening 
of the first intercolonial war.^ 

Wood entered largely into the building of the forts. 
With mud or earth embankments, and little or no 
masonry, the forts were anything but substantial in char- 
acter. At best the appellation fort was a misnomer, and 
usually they were allowed to fall into a sad state of decay. 
The following report of a committee appointed in 1693 
to investigate the condition of the fort at Saybrook, is 
probably not an overdrawn picture of the general dilap- 
idated condition of the colony's defences. 

''Wee find that such are the Ruinous decayes of ye 
said ffort, that the small matter of charge by your honour 
proposed will bee all togither insignificant and worth less 
both to their Majesties and this Colonye's Interest, the 

^ In the act settling the militia enacted by Andros, it was provided 
that in case of an alarm, four muskets or small arms should be discharged, 
or one " great gun " fired, accompanied by the beating of a drum. Col. Rec, 
III, 432. Compare Levermore, op. cit., 51; Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 417; 
Col. Rec, I, 2, 560; IV, 18; VIII, 387. 

^ In 1633 the Dutch from Manhattan sailed up the Connecticut River 
and erected a block house on the present site of Hartford. Trumbull, 
I; Morgan, Conn, as a Colony and a State, I, 84. 

'Col. Rec, IV, 19, 48, 73, etc 



92 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPORATE COLONY. 

Gates are all down but one, and one of them gone, both 
Wood and iron therrof ye hooks of ye greate Gate stole ; 
most of ye Iron of one of ye Cariages with all the iron of 
another, taken away; the Platformes all Eotten ^nd un- 
servisable; part of ye stone wall yt supports the mount 
fallen down, most of the mud wall decayed, with the 
Palasados agt itt ; about Four Rodd of plank Wall on the 
north that never was done, and Lyes open, the Jack, Jack 
staff and Filler to be repaired with new, most of ye great 
shott pilfered and gone, and according to our favourable 
judgmt doe Compute ye Charge, to be noe less than Fifty 
pounds to put itt in a defensiue posture, all which etc."^ 
Little or no improvement was made in either of the two 
principal forts during the eighteenth century. In 1709 
both the forts at New London and Saybrook were in an 
advanced state of decay.^ In 1728 the General Court ap- 
pointed a committee to inspect the fort at New London to 
see whether it was advisable to repair the old fort or build 
a new one, but nothing seems to have been accomplished.^ 
During the long interval of peace between the second 
and third intercolonial wars, the defences of the coast 
towns were almost completely neglected. With the out- 
break of hostilities, the colonists were once more aroused 
over the defenceless condition of their ports. A large 
number of petitions were sent to the General Court, re- 
questing aid in repairing the fortifications.* In a petition 
of the inhabitants of New London, it was stated ''That 
ye Town and Port of New London is in a very naked and 
defenceless Condition . . . Convincing us that we Live 
Carelessly without walls or Strongholds, or other de- 

^ MS. Rec. War, II, 184. 

2 Ibid., Ill, 72, 73. 

3 Col. Rec, VII, 216. 

* MS. Rec. War, IV, 1-51. 



MILITAEY AFFAIRS. 93 

fence under Heaven, and are unworthy the Care of 
Providence without the exercise of prudent Endeavours 
for the Safety of our Lives and fortune."^ In answer 
to these petitions the General Court ordered the purchase 
of some cannon to be placed in the New London fort.^ 

In 1756 Governor Fitch reported to the Board of Trade 
that the only fort in the colony was a "small battery" 
at New London, containing nine guns, three unfit for use ; 
twenty-two carriage guns, and twelve swivel guns taken 
from the colony sloop. No mention is made of Saybrook, 
probably because it had fallen into such bad condition that 
it had been abandoned as a fort.^ 

In the interior towns, particularly in the more remote 
and exposed settlements, certain selected houses were 
"fortified." The fortification usually consisted of a log 
wall built a short distance from the house, all around it. 
The wall was carried up ten or twelve feet in height, with 
such openings as were necessary for discharging muskets. 
In times of danger the inhabitants would repair to the for- 
tified houses at night, returning to their homes during 
the day.^ This method of interior defence was quite gen- 
eral during King Philip's war. Fortified houses also 
appear during the first and second intercolonial wars, 
especially in the frontier towns. During the last two in- 
tercolonial wars, in which there was little fear of the Con- 
necticut towns suffering, the fortification of houses seldom 
appeared.^ 

1 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., V, 219 et seq. 

2 Col. Rec, VIII, 71; Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., V, 337. 

3 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., I, 282. 

* Davis, Hist, of Wallingford, 350; Steiner, Hist, of Guilford, 421; 
Cothren, Hist, of Ancient Woodbury, 66, 78; Caulkins, Hist, of New Lon- 
don, 183; Bronson, Hist, of Waterbury, 102. 

'There is a reference to fortified houses in the extreme northwestern 
township of Salisbury during the third intercolonial war. Col. Rec, IX, 
198. 



94 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

Of a colonial ''navy" little need be said, as nothing 
which could be dignified by that name appeared during 
the colonial period. During the seventeenth century the 
only mention of a war vessel was a frigate of ten or 
twelve guns provided by Connecticut and New Haven in 
1653, when there was fear of an attack by the Dutch.^ 
Toward the end of the second intercolonial war, Connecti- 
cut tried to arrange with Rhode Island to provide a guard 
ship to protect the coasting trade between Boston and 
New London. Rhode Island did not see fit to cooperate, 
and Connecticut provided one alone.^ At the opening of 
the third intercolonial war, the General Court ordered that 
"a, strong swift and large" sloop be procured for the de- 
fence of the coast. The sloop was built at Middletown and 
named the Defence. It acted as a coast defence ship, 
capturing at least one French vessel, made a cruise to 
Cuba in 1741, took part in the capture of Louisburg in 
1745, receiving 5,000 pounds as prize money, and was 
finally disarmed and sold at auction in 1748 for 4,860 
pounds.^ During the last of the colonial wars, a brigan- 
tine named the Tartar was purchased and fitted up with 
the guns taken from the Defence. This ship was only 
kept two years when it was sold at auction for 800 pounds.^ 
Such was the extent of the colonial navy. 

Hardly had the pioneers of Connecticut become settled 
in their new homes, when ''an offensiue warr" was de- 
clared against the Pequot Indians. This tribe inhabited 
the southeastern part of the colony in what is now New 
London County. They were the most numerous and war- 
like of the native tribes of Connecticut.^ The preliminary 

'New Haven Col. Rec, II, 14; Trumbull, I, 213. 
^ Col. Rec, V, 207, 306. 

*Col. Rec, IX, 355, 411; Conn. Hist. Soc Colls., V, 356. 
*Col. Rec, XI, 62, 295; MS. Rec War, VII, 191; VIII, 239. 
5 The best estimate of their fighting strength is about six hundred 
warriors. De Forrest, Hist, of the Indians of Connecticut, 58. 



MILITARY AFFAIRS. 95 

events leading up to the struggle might be briefly noted. 
One Capt. Stone, in 1633, had come from Virginia to 
trade on the New England coast. After a short stay in 
Massachusetts he sailed with a Capt. Norton to the Con- 
necticut River. The Indians appearing friendly, were 
allowed to board the ship. Probably the too free dispensa- 
tion of '^fire water" led to the massacre of the Captain 
while in a drunken stupor, and a fight between the In- 
dians and the rest of the crew. In the midst of the 
*' melee" the vessel was blown up by a quantity of powder 
being ignited.^ Difficulties which the Pequots were then 
in, both with the Dutch and their own dependent tribes, 
predisposed them to desire peace with the English. Rep- 
resentatives of the Pequots visited Massachusetts in an 
effort to arrange a treaty with the English. Finally, 
after telling a plausible story about the murder of Stone, 
and agreeing to surrender the murderers, an agreement 
was made and signed by which the English agreed to 
make settlements in the Pequot country and send vessels 
to trade with the natives.^ The latter agreed to pay to 
the English 400 fathoms of wampum, 30 otter and 40 
beaver skins. Neither party to the treaty fulfilled its 
conditions. Trouble was precipitated by the murder of 
one John Oldham, a trader, by the Indians on Block 
Island.^ The Pequots were accused of harboring the 
murderers of Oldham. An expedition was fitted out under 
John Endicott which first proceeded to Block Island, 
where nothing further was accomplished than the destruc- 
tion of some Indian wigwams and corn fields.'* Proceed- 
ing then to the Pequot country they touched at Saybrook, 
where they were joined by Lieut. Gardiner in command of 

1 Winthrop, Hist, of New England, I, 123; De Forest, op. cit., 77. 

* Winthrop, op. cit., 147-149. 
aWinthrop, I, 189; Trumbull, I, 71. 

* Mass. Hist. Colls., 4th Series, VI, 5, 6. VVinthrop, op. cit., I, 192-194. 



96 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOKATE COLONY. 

the garrison at that point. The Indians did not suspect 
the cause of the Englishmen 's visit, and no opposition was 
made to their landing. Endicott made his demands 
known, which, naturally, were refused by the natives. In 
the resulting struggle about all that was accomplished was 
the destruction of the Indian wigwams and corn, and the 
arousal of the thirst for vengeance in the Indians.^ The 
Pequots resolved to form an alliance with their old enemies 
the Narragansetts, and sent two sachems to the latter tribe 
for that purpose.^ Their plans were forestalled by the 
Massachusetts colony arranging a treaty of alliance with 
the Narragansetts through the influence of Roger Wil- 
liams.^ 

The Pequots having failed in their design to bring 
about a general Indian war, turned their attention to 
making reprisals upon the nearest English settlement, 
the garrison at Saybrook. Here a succession of raids 
were made, several stragglers from the fort killed, out- 
houses and crops destroyed, and the garrison kept in vir- 
tual state of siege ^ Early in 1637 the Indians made their 
appearance further up the Connecticut, and killed and 
captured several of the inhabitants of Wethersfield.^ 
Following these disasters the General Court declared war, 
and ordered the raising of a force of 90 men, under the 
command of Major Mason. ^ Massachusetts and Plymouth 
had agreed to send aid, the former raising 200 men and 
the latter 40 men.^ The Connecticut troops were joined 
by about 70 Indians under the Mohegan sachem Uncas. 

1 Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 4th Series, III, 141 ; Ibid., 4tli Series, VI, 10. 

2 Hubbard, Narrative of the Indian Wars, 29. 

»R. I. Hist. Soc. Colls., Ill, 160; Winthrop, op. cit., I, 198. 
Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 4th Ser., Ill, 142 et seq.; ibid., 4th Ser., VI, 15 
et seq.; Trumbull, I, 72 et seq. 

5 Trumbull, I, 77; Winthrop, I, 218; Mass. Hist. Colls, 2d Ser., IV, 30. 

6 Col. Rec, I, 9. 

' Winthrop, I, 222. 



MILITARY AFFAIRS. 



97 



Mason with his small band sailed down the Connecticut 
and thence proceeded along the coast, passing the Pequot 
country, and landing among the Narragansetts. Having 
received permission from the latter to march through 
their territory in order to attack the Pequots from the 
rear, he proceeded without waiting for the Massachusetts 
contingent which had been dispatched overland. On the 
march he was joined by some of the Narragansett In- 
dians. Having reached the Pequot country, it was 
learned that the natives had two "fortified" places. One 
of the ' ' forts ' ' near Groton was attacked before daybreak, 
taking the Indians by surprise and throwing them into 
confusion. The order was finally given to fire the pali- 
sade, and most of the Indians perished miserably in the 
flames.^ Mason and the Connecticut contingent returned 
to their ships, and sailed home. The Massachusetts forces 
under Capt. Patrick, which had come from Narragansett 
with the fleet, proceeded overland to Saybrook. 

The remnant of the Pequots determined to abandon 
their old homes and seek refuge towards the west. The 
colonists determined to pursue and exterminate them. 
Massachusetts voted to raise a force of 120 men under the 
command of Capt. Israel Stoughton.^ This force landed 
at the mouth of the Pequot Kiver, surrounded a swamp 
in which were concealed a party of Pequots, killed the 
warriors and sold the women and children as slaves. 
Proceeding westward they were joined by a Connecticut 
force under Mason. The Pequots were driven westward 
and finally surrounded in a swamp near Fairfield. Sas- 
sacus, the leader of the Pequots, escaped westward, where 

^ The number of persons that were killed has been estimated variously 
at from three to seven hundred. De Forest, op. cit., 133. For full ac- 
counts of this campaign see Mason, Hist, of the Pequot War Mass. Hist. 
Soc. Colls., 2d Ser., VIII, 133 et seq. De Forest, op. cit., 119 et seq. 

^Winthrop, I, 232. 



98 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPORATE COLONY. 

he was afterward killed by the Mohawks. The remainder 
were either killed or captured and the most powerful of 
the tribes of Connecticut Indians was thus completely 
crushed. Some of the captives were sold as slaves, others 
were distributed among the Mohegan and Narragansett 
tribes.^ 

This war, if it can be dignified by that name, had made 
certain facts apparent. The Indians with their primitive 
weapons, were no match for the Englishmen with fire 
arms. Furthermore the settlers had learned that one 
tribe of natives could be used to annihilate another. The 
Indians had not come to look upon the whites as a com- 
mon enemy to their race. Before the final struggle be- 
tween the settlers and the Indians of southern New Eng- 
land occurred, the conditions had decidedly changed to 
the disadvantage of the whites. Through the cupidity 
of some of the colonists, the Indians gradually became 
supplied with fire arms. Furthermore the natives had 
learned, in a measure, by bitter experience, the necessity 
of presenting a united front against their common foe. 
It was under these changed conditions that the last, and 
by far the greatest, struggle between the natives and the 
whites in southern New England, took place. This was 
the so-called King Philip's War. 

Before discussing this final struggle some mention 
needs to be made of the Indian troubles from the close 
of the Pequot War, to the opening of Philip's War. 
Some of the wandering Pequots had found their way 
back to their old lands, and had built a village. This was 
contrary to treaty agreement, and the Greneral Court dis- 
patched a force of 40 soldiers under Major Mason, to 
break up the village, and disperse the Indians.^ The 

' Mason, op. cit., 145 et seq. ; Hubbard, op. cit., 42 et seq. ; Winthrop, I, 
232 et seq. 

2 Col. Rec, I, 32. 



MILITARY AFFAIRS. 99 

band was broken up and the village destroyed with little 
difficulty.^ The colonists were kept almost in constant 
turmoil and strife with various tribes, as a result of tak- 
ing Uncas and the Mohegans under their protection. 
Other tribes were envious of the increased influence and 
power of Uncas. Among these were the Connecticut 
River Indians under Sequassen, and the Narragansetts 
with Miantinomo at their head. Uncas first clashed with 
Sequassen, resulting in the defeat of the latter, the death 
of several of his warriors, and the burning of their wig- 
wams.^ This precipitated a war between Uncas and the 
Narrangansetts. The colonists held aloof from this 
struggle, allowing the Indians to settle their differences 
in their own way. By a piece of strategem on the part 
of the wily Uncas, the Narragansetts were defeated and 
their leader captured.^ Carrying his captive in triumph 
to Hartford, Uncas laid before the Magistrates the ques- 
tion of the final disposal of the prisoner. It was decided 
to refer the matter to the next meeting of Commissioners 
of the United Colonies. This body decided that Mian- 
tonomo should be killed. He was handed over to Uncas, 
and a deputation of two Englishmen was appointed to 
accompany the party to see that the execution was done 
in a decent manner."* 

The eastern settlements of Connecticut became in- 
volved in the struggle between the Dutch at New Nether- 
lands, and the Hudson River Indians.^ The Dutch en- 
listed the services of the famous Indian fighter Capt. 

1 Mason, op. cit., 149-151. 

aWinthrop, II, 130; De Forest, 187. 

"Trumbull, I, 129 et seq.; Winthrop, II, 131 et seq. 

* Trumbull, I, 133; Winthrop, II, 134. 

5 This was the struggle precipitated by the foolhardy action of Gov. 
Kieft in murdering the Indians that had taken refuge on Manhattan 
Island. Brodhead, Hist, of N. Y., I, 350 et seq. 



100 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPOKATE COLONY. 

Underhill, wlio brought the struggle to a close by the 
overwhelming defeat of the Indians near Stamford. 

Trouble between the Narragansetts and the Mohegans 
did not end with the death of Miantonomo. Constant at- 
tempts were made by the former to avenge the death of 
their leader. In 1644 the Commissioners of the United 
Colonies, summoned representatives of both parties be- 
fore them, to arrange some sort of accommodation. A 
truce was agreed to for one year, and a promise made 
that thirty days' notice of hostilities would be given to 
the Governor of Massachusetts.^ This agreement was 
not kept. The Narragansetts joined by the Nehantics 
laid waste the territory of the Mohegans. It was not 
until the Narragansetts were threatened with the same 
treatment that had been given the Pequots that they were 
brought to terms. ^ In 1654 trouble broke out between the 
colonists and the Nehantics, growing out of the war of 
the latter with the Long Island Indians. A force of Eng- 
lish sent down into the Nehantic country, was sufficient 
to bring the Indians to terms. ^ From this time on until 
the outbreak of Philip's War, except for the almost con- 
stant conflicts of Uncas with various Indian tribes, which 
were usually settled by threatened or actual interference 
of the English, the settlers were not engaged in any strife 
with the natives. 

All the conflicts which have been briefly outlined, were 
but slight skirmishes or preliminaries to the great strug- 
gle which opened in 1675, and continued almost inces- 
santly for more than a year. It is not proposed to give 
a detailed account of this celebrated contest, but only to 
briefly outline the part taken in it by Connecticut. 

1 Hazard, 25, 26. 

» Ibid., II, 28-44 ; Caulkins, Hist, of New London, 23-26. 

3 Hazard, II, 308-381. 



MILITARY AFFAIRS. 101 

This struggle presents several new considerations. 
First, the Indians, as has been noted, had become well 
supplied with firearms, and had learned, in a measure, 
to combine for mutual protection against the whites. 
Then again, this struggle, viewed in a broader light, was 
significant. It was the one great Indian War of the 
seventeenth century, which tested the combined efforts 
of the New England colonies. Here became apparent the 
inherent difficulties of carrying on a warfare requiring 
the combined efforts of the several colonies. New Eng- 
land individualism never appeared to less advantage than 
in carrying on extensive military operations. It is an 
axiom of military science that divided authority is fatal 
to effective warfare. In no function of administration is 
centralization so essential as in the direction of military 
forces in time of war. In New England there was no 
central authority, outside the vague control exercised by 
the commissioners of the New England Confederacy. 
Under these circumstances effective campaigning was 
seriously handicapped. There were bound to be local 
jealousies and differences of opinion as to the manner 
in which operations should be conducted. With all the 
possibilities for friction and disagreement, the wonder is 
that there should have been as effective cooperation as 
appeared. The common danger to all parties concerned 
probably is accountable for this fact. It was not until 
the larger military operations of the eighteenth century, 
when the danger was no longer equally distributed, that 
the fatal weakness of the New England system became 
fully apparent. 

At the beginning Philip's war was a local struggle 
around Mt. Hope peninsula in the Plymouth colony. 
Massachusetts came to the aid of Plymouth. Philip was 
forced to cross to the eastern shore of Narragansett Bay, 



102 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

and take refuge in a swamp. ^ The Massachusetts troops 
then proceeded down into the Narragansett country to 
force that considerable tribe to agree to a treaty with the 
English. The only effect of this manoeuvre was to en- 
sure the hostility of the Narragansetts, who up to that 
time had not given clear evidences of joining Philip. 

Philip, who had taken refuge in the swamp, made good 
his escape and jDroceeded into central Massachusetts. 
Joined by the Indians in this section, the war now as- 
sumed more serious proportions, and its spread to the 
Connecticut valley opened the phase of the struggle in 
which Connecticut was most immediately concerned. The 
Massachusetts towns in the Connecticut valley were 
logically an extension of the northern border of Connecti- 
cut rather than of the western border of Massachusetts. 
Between these towns and the true western frontier of 
Massachusetts was a tract fifty miles wide of uninhabited 
country. News of an attack upon Quaboag (Brookfield) 
moved the Council of Connecticut to dispatch forty men 
to Springfield to aid the Massachusetts towns. To these 
were added several bands of Pequots and Mohegan In- 
dians, who remained faithful to the English throughout 
the struggle.^ In August, in anticipation of a raid by the 
Indians in the northern Connecticut Valley, the Council 
ordered the dragoons and other forces which had been 
raised under Major Treat to proceed northward.^ 

A good instance of the lack of any general plan of cam- 
paign or effective cooperation was shown at the outset. 
Major Treat had hardly started on his march when he was 
recalled to search for some Indians that were seen lurking 
about Hartford.^ In the meantime, an attack had occurred 

^ Osgood, American Colonies, I, 549. 

2 Col. Rec, II, 345, 348. 

» Ibid., II, 356. 

* Ibid., II, 359, 360. 



MILITARY AFFAIRS. 



103 



on Deerfield, and Treat was ordered northward again. 
Differences of opinion also arose between the Connecti- 
cut and Massachusetts authorities, as to the method of 
carrying on the campaign. Connecticut objected to hav- 
ing her troops used for garrisoning the Massachusetts 
towns, and insisted upon more active measures. Upon 
rumors of a general uprising of Connecticut Indians, 
Major Treat was again ordered to return to Hartford 
with a portion of the Connecticut forces. In his absence 
trouble developed between Lieut. Seely, in command of 
the Connecticut troops, and Capt. Appleton, of the Massa- 
chusetts contingent. Seely refused to take orders from 
Appleton, referring to Treat as his superior.^ Upon the 
return of Treat, the difficulty seems to have been settled. 
In November, 1675, the scene of activity was shifted 
to the Narragansett country. The actions of this tribe 
gave rise to the conviction that they were not observing 
the treaty to which they had been forced to agree. A force 
of 1,000 men, of which Connecticut furnished 315 whites 
and 150 Mohegans, was dispatched against the Narragan- 
setts. The Indian fort was in a swamp near the present 
town of North Kingston. After a sanguinary battle the 
fort was taken by storm and burned.^ There was much 
suffering among the soldiers through the severity of the 
weather and lack of supplies. Some of the soldiers had 
deserted, and when a fresh levy was called for there was 
much complaint and some difficulty in obtaining the re- 
quired quota of 500 men.^ The resulting midwinter raid 
into the Narragansett and Nipmuck country accomplished 
no decisive results. 

1 Ibid., II, 374, 381. 

2 The English lost seventy killed and one hundred and fifty wounded. 
Of these killed forty were Connecticut men. Bodge; Trumbull, I, 337 
et seq. 

3 Col. Rec, II, 394 et seq.; MS. Rec. War, I, 34a. 



104 CONNECTICUT AS A COEPORATE COLONY. 

In the spring of 1676 the Connecticut troops were again 
employed in the Narragansett country, one of their im- 
portant achievements being the capture of the Narragan- 
sett chief Canonchet. In May a force under Major Tal- 
cott, combined with a Massachusetts force, ranged the 
upper country, but with no material results. In June 
Major Talcott again left Hartford and made a success- 
ful raid through the Narragansett, countrVrCa^uring and / 
killing some 238 Indians.^ The baoliboi/o c^f lEc otrugglo 
AC which was now broken was finally terminated by the 
/' dramatic death of Philip.^ 

In the brief summary which has been given of the one 
important Indian war of the seventeenth century, there 
are one or two points which need to be emphasized. From 
the standpoint of administration— and this is the phase 
of the subject with which we are most immediately con- 
cerned—the fundamental weakness of the New England 
system had become sufficiently manifest. While toler- 
able unity of action had been maintained, it was accom- 
plished at times with much difficulty. One colony, Rhode 
Island, had not been asked, and had taken no part in the 
struggle. The others, and particularly Connecticut, had 
shown a commendable spirit of individual sacrifice for the 
common good. But after all has been said the fact re- 
mains that, had the struggle been on a more pretentious 
scale, or had the colonists been confronted by an enemy 
more nearly their equal, the possibilities of discord which 
pertained to the system of divided authority would almost 
inevitably have resulted in disaster for the colonies. 

With the last decade of the seventeenth century opened 
the long series of wars between England and France, all 

1 Col. Rec, II, 458. 

^ Trumbull, I, 367. The struggle continued among the eastern settle- 
ments in New Hampshire and Maine until the summer of 1678. Bodge, 
op. cit., 296-341. 



MILITARY AFFAIRS. 105 

of which were reproduced in the colonies of each country 
in the New World. 

Before considering these different struggles, some gen- 
eral considerations need to be noted. The Indian wars 
which have been reviewed were contests simply between 
the English colonists and the natives unaided by any 
European power. The colonists, moreover, in these wars 
had been left entirely to their own resources, both as to 
means and methods. Neither aid nor interference came 
from England. With the advent of the colonial wars all 
this was changed. The Indians were now joined by a 
powerful European nation. On the other hand, the Eng- 
lish colonists received aid, and what is of more impor- 
tance, direction from the home government.^ The colonists 
were no longer left to themselves in planning and execut- 
ing their military operations. They were called upon to 
take part in campaigns in the conception and management 
of which they had little to do. They were now for the 
first time participating in the larger activities of the 
British Empire. The isolated position in which the col- 
onists, and particularly those of New England, had been 
left during the greater part of the seventeenth century 
was, in a measure, changed. There had been developed in 
England, as will be indicated in another connection, a 
more uniform colonial policy, involving the closer depen- 
dence of the colonies on the mother country. No other 
colonies were so greatly affected by this change as the 
corporate colonies of New England. There was a total 
absence of any imperial official system in these colonies, 
and, if any such system was to be provided, there must be 
a material modification of their internal organization. It 
is not proposed in this connection to trace in detail the de- 
velopment of imperial control, but simply to point out how 

^ As will be seen, the control of colonial military operations by the 
authorities in England did not become prominent until the second inter- 
colonial war, and was not fully developed until the last intercolonial war. 



106 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPOKATE COLONY. 

the intercolonial wars showed the necessity for such con- 
trol, at least in the department of military administration. 

Geographically Connecticut had an advantage over 
most of the other colonies. On the north and west she 
was protected by the colonies of Massachusetts and New 
York. Her southern coast was vulnerable, but, as events 
proved, there was little to be feared from that quarter. 
In none of the wars was the territory of the colony invaded 
or devastated by the enemy. Such part as Connecticut 
took in the wars was either in defence of her neighboring 
colonies or in the different offensive campaigns for the 
reduction of Canada. 

In 1689, less than three months after the Prince of 
Orange had been seated on the English throne, war was 
declared between England and France. Count Prontenac, 
who had lately succeeded to the government of Canada, 
immediately prepared to dispatch raiding parties of 
French and Indians into New York and New England. In 
the latter the French were aided by the eastern Indians, 
who had been at war with the English colonists for the 
past two years. ^ Leisler, who had assumed the govern- 
ment of New York upon the deposition of Andros, appealed 
to Connecticut for aid. Connecticut, sympathizing with 
his cause, dispatched ten men to help garrison the fort at 
New York and a company of soldiers under Capt. Bull to 
Albany to guard the frontier.^ A part of the Connecticut 
force was at Schenectady when the massacre at that place 
occurred.^ Upon receiving news of this calamity, Con- 
necticut sent two hundred reinforcements to Albany.^ 

' Palfrey, Hist, of New England, III, 567 ; IV, 29 et seq. Connecticut 
came to the aid of Massachusetts in the war with the Eastern Indians 
with two hundred men. Col. Rec, IV, 2, 3, 4. 

='Col. Rec, III, 255; Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., Ill, 589. 
O'Callaghan, Documentary Hist, of N. Y., II, 20, 43. 

* Connecticut lost five men killed and five captured in this assault. Col. 
Rec, III, 463. 

* Ibid., IV, 16, 26. 



MILITAKY ATFAIES. 107 

The most important enterprise during the war in which 
Connecticut took part was the abortive expedition against 
Montreal in 1690. This expedition had been planned at a 
meeting in New York of commissioners from that colony 
and the colonies of New England.^ The land force con- 
sisted of 800 English and 1,800 Indians, under the com- 
mand of Fitz John Winthrop. When the Connecticut con- 
tingent reached Wood Creek on Lake Champlain, the 
appointed place of rendezvous, it was found that the 
Indians had not appeared. Furthermore, the canoes 
necessary to transport the troops were not on hand and 
the supplies which New York had engaged to provide 
were inadequate. Sickness among the troops added to 
the difficulties. In these circumstances a council of war 
was called by Winthrop and a retreat was determined 
upon. Upon the arrival of Winthrop at Albany it appears 
that Leisler, enraged at the failure of the enterprise, 
ordered the arrest and court martial of Winthrop. 
Trumbull states that after being kept in confinement for 
several days Winthrop was rescued by some Mohawk 
Indians ''to the universal joy of the army." ^ When the 
news of Winthrop 's arrest reach Connecticut the General 
Court dispatched a letter to Leisler demanding the im- 
mediate release of the general.^ Upon an examination of 
the case by the Court, Winthrop was fully vindicated.* 

* There appear to have been some Connecticut troops in the naval ex- 
pedition under Phips which was sent out in conjunction with Winthrop's 
expedition. Sewall, Letter Book Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 6th Ser., I, 126. 

2 Trumbull, I, 384. There seems to be no question that Leisler actually 
arrested Winthrop. The storj^ of his rescue, however, may have originated 
in Trumbull's known penchant for the dramatic. See Winthrop's Journal 
of his march to Wood Creek; Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 5th Ser., VIII, 312 
et seq. Also Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., IV, 193 et seq.; Mass. 
Hist. Soc. Colls, 5th Ser., VIII, 307 et seq.; ibid., 5th Ser., I, 440; Palfrey, 
op. cit., IV, 221. 

3 Trumbull, I, Appendix, XXIV. 

*Col. Rec, IV, 38; O'Callaghan, Doe. Hist, of N. Y., II, 300, gives 
Leisler's version. 



108 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

During the remainder of the war Connecticut was 
almost constantly called upon to furnish aid to her neigh- 
boring colonies, and usually the colony responded gener- 
ously. In 1691 Connecticut declined to send 150 men to gar- 
rison Albany on the ground of poverty and the exposed 
condition of her own frontiers.^ In 1692 Fletcher arrived 
as Governor of New York, and the difficulty over the com- 
mand of the militia of Connecticut, which has been re- 
ferred to, naturally led to strained relations between him 
and the colony officials, ^ but Connecticut continued to 
send aid to New York throughout the war.^ Contribu- 
tions of money and supplies, with troops, were likewise 
sent to Massachusetts.^ The total expenses of Connecti- 
cut in this ten years of war has been estimated at more 
than 12,000 pounds, nearly all expended for operations 
outside of her own borders.^ 

In 1701 began the second intercolonial war, better known 
as Queen Anne's war. The year after the war started 
Joseph Dudley was appointed Governor of Massachusetts 
and Lord Cornbury Governor of New York. The rela- 
tions of Connecticut with these two men were, to say the 
least, not cordial. In 1703 the colony had sent 100 men 
to aid Dudley in the war against the eastern Indians.^ 
Difficulties almost immediately arose, Dudley insisting 
that the Connecticut troops while in Massachusetts should 
be under his orders.'^ Cornbury, on the other hand, was 
continually complaining of his inability to get aid from 
Connecticut.^ The statements of both these men undoubt- 

' Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., Ill, 786. 

^ Fletcher continually complained of the difficulty of obtaining aid from 
Connecticut. Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., IV, 157, 174, 243. 
^Col. Rec, IV, 87, 160, 217. 
*Ibid., IV, 64, 89, 129, 216. 
» Trumbull, I, 397. 

•Mass. Hist. Soc. Colls., 6th Ser., Ill, 139, 153, 163. 
f Ibid., 6th Ser., Ill, 273. 
8 Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., IV, 1061, 1070. 



MILITARY APFAIRS. 



109 



edly have to be taken with considerahle reservation. They 
were, at the time, engaged in a combined attempt to over- 
throw the charter of Connecticut, and their representa- 
tions were unquestionably not disinterested.^ When, in 
1707, Dudley requested aid from Connecticut in a contem- 
plated expedition against Canada the General Court flatly 
refused, stating that they had not been consulted in plan- 
ning the expedition, and further that they had been at 
considerable expense in defending the western frontier of 
Massachusetts.^ 

In 1709 the English Government for the first time took 
an active part in the war in America, and, as events 
proved, it was to be an inglorious beginning. A general 
plan had been arranged for the subjugation of Canada. 
Twelve hundred men were to be equipped in Massachu- 
setts and Rhode Island, which force was to attack Quebec. 
Fifteen hundred men from Connecticut, New York, New 
Jersey and Pennsylvania were to march against Quebec.^ 
To these was to be added a sufficient English fleet. In the 
colonies everything was prepared. Connecticut's contin- 
gent of 350 men was armed and equipped* and sent to 
Wood Creek, the place of rendezvous of the western force. 
After a long wait for the help promised from England, 
news was received that the fleet and troops were needed 
at home. With this intelligence the expedition was 
abandoned and the forces at Wood Creek, which had 

iln 1705 through the activity of Dudley and Cornbury a series of 
complaints had been made against Connecticut and Rhode Island with a 
view to overthrowing their charters. A bill introduced in Parliament 
for the purpose of vacating all colonial charters. Through the efforts of 
Sir Henry Ashurst, the agent of Connecticut, the bill failed to pass the 
House of Lords. Trumbull, I, 411 et seq.; R. I. Col. Rec, IV, 12, 16; 
Palfrey, IV, 367 et seq. 

i Col. Rec, V, 17, 18. 

s Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N, Y., V, 72. 

* Col. Rec, V, 91, 123. 



110 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

suffered much from an epidemic sickness, retreated. The 
whole costly expedition had come to nothing. 

The following year (1710) the project was renewed. A 
force under Col. Nicholson, made up of New England 
troops, with a few small English vessels and a regiment of 
royal marines, proceeded to Port Royal, which, after a 
week's siege, was forced to surrender.^ This success stimu- 
lated the authorities in England to greater efforts. In 1711 
a fleet of fifteen men of war and forty transports with some 
five thousand troops, arrived at Boston. The colonists 
responded generously. A meeting of the Governors and 
military officers was held at New Lpndon to decide on 
the quota to be furnished by each colony and provide for 
supplying the expedition with food.^ Connecticut's quota 
was fixed at 360 men, which number was promptly raised.^ 
As in the previous expeditions, the Connecticut contin- 
gent joined the forces in New York for an attack on 
Montreal. The fleet which left Boston in due season con- 
veying seven thousand troops, while proceeding up the St. 
Lawrence river, lost its way in a fog and some ten or 
eleven of the ships were driven on the rocks and nearly 
1,000 persons drowned. This disaster caused the with- 
drawal of the remainder of the fleet and the land force 
which had gathered near Lake Champlain. Thus the 
third attempt to subdue Canada had ended in dismal fail- 
ure. ^ The following year the war was closed by the treaty 
of Utrecht. During the war Connecticut, besides furnish- 
ing her quota of men in the several Canadian expeditions, 
had almost constantly kept troops in Massachusetts to 
guard the western frontier.^ 

' Palfrey, IV, 277. Connecticut furnished three hundred men in this 
expedition. Col. Rec, V, 164. 

^ The Journal of this congress is printed in Doc. Rel. to Col. Hist, of 
N. Y., V, 257. 

* Col. Rec, V, 247. The Journal says three hundred men. 

* Palfrey, IV, 278; Trumbull, I, 441 et seq. 
5 Col. Rec, V, 167, 295, 300, 326. 



MILITAKY APFAIKS. Ill 

With the cessation of hostilities, there was to be a period 
of more than twenty-five years of peace between England 
and France. In the colonies, however, trouble was con- 
stantly arising between the English and the eastern In- 
dians, urged on by the French. In 1722, as a result of 
many depredations by the natives in Maine, the General 
Court of Massachusetts declared war against the eastern 
Indians.^ When applied to for aid in prosecuting the war, 
Connecticut declined on the ground that ' ' the war was not 
such an invasion of the frontiers, as was understood by 
his Majesty in his instructions" to the governor of Mass- 
achusetts.* The colony agreed, however, to send troops 
into Hampshire County to protect the frontier towns. 
Further urgent requests for aid met with no better suc- 
cess, Connecticut maintaining that she had not been con- 
sulted before war was declared, and was not satisfied as 
to its justice.^ The struggle was finally ended in 1725.* 

In 1739 war broke out between England and Spain. 
It was determined to send an expedition to the Spanish 
West Indies and South American colonies and the New 
England colonies were called upon to furnish four regi- 
ments.^ The quota for each colony was not fixed, as it 
was stated that they "would not set bounds to their Zeal 
for the Service. ' '^ Of the 1,000 New England troops that 
joined this ill-fated expedition, two hundred were from 
Connecticut.^ The land force, consisting of twelve thou- 
sand soldiers under Lord George Cathcart,^ joined the 

- Acts and Resolves of Prov. of Mass. Bay, II, 258. 

2 Col. Rec, VI, 335, 336; MS. Rec. War, III, 178-188. 

3 Col. Rec, VI, 503. 

* Palfrey, IV, 443. 

* See letter of the Duke of New Castle to Gov. Talcott. Conn. Hist. 
Soc. Colls., V, 191. 

6 Ibid., V, 230. 

7 Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., V, 269, 304 ; Col. Rec, VIII, 324. 

8 He died on the voyage south and was succeeded by Gen. Wentworth. 



112 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

considerable fleet of Admiral Vernon at Jamaica. After 
some delay, during which the forces were decimated by 
the tropical climate, it was determined to lay siege to the 
Spanish fortress at Cartagena. After an ineffectual 
siege, characterized by incompetence, if nothing worse, 
on the part of the commander, the fleet and the remnants 
of the army returned to Jamaica. Of the New England 
contingent scarcely one tenth ever returned home.^ 

In 1740 this war became merged in the general Euro- 
pean struggle over the Austrian Succession. As was to 
be expected, England and France took opposite sides in 
the strife, but it was not until 1744 that war was formally 
declared between them, and once again the rival colonies 
in America were engaged in the struggle. Governor 
Shirley laid before the General Court of Massachusetts 
a plan for the reduction of the French fortress at Louis- 
burg. The proposal was received with amazement by the 
Court and voted down as being quite beyond the re- 
sources of the colony. The scheme however was received 
with favor by the people and the General Court finally 
consented.^ Aid was sought from the other colonies but 
only the New England colonies responded; Connecticut 
with 500 men, and the sloop Defence.^ 

The combined colonial force under Wm. Pepperell of 
Massachusetts,* arrived safely at Canseau within fifty 
miles of Louisburg. The troops were detained a month 
waiting for the ice to break up. In April the forces were 
materially strengthened by the arrival of Commodore 

^ Trumbull, II, 288. 
=" Palfrey, V, 62 et seq. 

* Col. Rec, IX, 83, 84. The Massachusetts contingent was 3,250 men; 
Rhode Island promised 300 men but they did not appear until the cam- 
paign was over; New Hampshire furnished 300 men and New York con- 
tributed ten small guns. New Jersey and Pennsylvania sent some pro- 
visions. Palfrey, V, 64. 

* Roger Walcott of Connecticut was second in command. 



MILITARY AFFAIRS. 113 

"Warren with several English men of war. After a siege 
of seven weeks the fortress was forced to capitulate.^ 
The news of the capture naturally caused great rejoicing 
throughout New England, but this joy was changed to 
chagrin when it was learned that by the treaty of peace 
the fortress was given back to the French. The capture 
of Louisburg raised once more the vision of the subjuga- 
tion of Canada. The proposal was favorably entertained 
in England, and help was promised. The colonies voted 
to raise some 8,000 men, Connecticut's quota being 1,000, 
but the failure of the English force to arrive, and an 
alarm from another quarter caused the abandonment of 
the expedition.^ Before any further military operations 
could be planned, the war was closed by the treaty of 
Aix La Chapelle. 

With the advent of the last of the intercolonial wars, 
an important step was taken by the home government to 
bring about closer cooperation and greater efficiency 
among the colonial troops. The previous wars had 
abundantly shown the weakness of the system of divided 
responsibility and control which prevailed in the colonies. 
Some of the colonies had contributed willingly to the 
caase of general defence, while others had been far less 
generous. Usually the loyalty of the colonists was in 
direct proportion to their sense of immediate danger. 
With a view to remedying these evils the authorities in 
England determined to place the colonial troops under 
a commander-in-chief appointed in England and to send 
to the colonies a considerable force of regular troops. 

1 Palfrey, 70 et seq.; Trumbull, II, 282. Connecticut furnished in all 
1,150 men in this enterprise. Col. Rec, IX, 83, 128, 155. 

2 News had reached the colonies of the despatch of a large French fleet 
to ravage the whole Atlantic coast. This caused the colonists to look to 
the defence of their coast towns. Nothing came of the expedition, the 
French fleet meeting with disaster before it reached the New England 
coast. Palfrey, V, 86. 



114 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

The plan while sound in principle was unfortunately ex- 
ecuted. The first commanders, Braddock, Shirley, Lou- 
doun and Abercrombie, were all incompetent, and their 
successive failures did not increase the loyalty or effi- 
ciency of the colonial troops. But with the accession of 
Pitt to power in England, leaders of real ability were sent 
to the America, and the final subjection of Canada was 
the reward. 

The last and most important of the struggles for col- 
onial supremacy in the New World opened in 1754, two 
years before war broke out between England and France 
in Europe. Only that phase of the war which imme- 
diately concerned New England, and particularly Con- 
necticut, will be touched upon here. 

Of the three expeditions planned in 1755, one against 
Fort Duquesne, one against Niagara, and one against 
Crown Point, we are immediately concerned with the last. 
A force of about three thousand men, mostly from Mas- 
sachusetts and Connecticut, under the command of Wil- 
liam Johnson of New York, were dispatched to attack 
Crown Point. They reached Wood Creek where they 
were surprised by a French force under Dieskau. The 
too confident French General attacked the English who 
were protected by rude intrenchments. After an obsti- 
nate conflict the French gave way and were pursued 
through the woods by the New England men. Johnson, 
who had been wounded early in the struggle, received full 
credit for this victory, although the real leader was Gen- 
eral Phineas Lyman of Connecticut.^ 

In the winter of 1755 Shirley met the colonial gover- 
nors at New York,2 and plans were discussed for the cam- 

' Connecticut sent 1,500 men in the expedition and later 1,500 rein- 
forcements. The losses of Connecticut in the Battle of Lake George were 
fifty-nine killed, wounded and missing. Col. Rec, X, 344, 398; Doc. Rel. 
to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., VI, 1006. 

- There appeared only the governors of Connecticut, New York, Penn- 
sylvania and Maryland. Palfrey, V, 144. 



MILITAKY AFFAIRS. 



115 



paigns of the following year. The plans, however, were 
frustrated by the displacement of Shirley as commander- 
in-chief, and the appointment of the Earl of Loudoun 
with Gen. Abercrombie, second in command. This action 
followed shortly after the declaration of war between 
England and France. Against these incompetent officers 
was matched the Marquis de Montcalm who succeeded 
Dieskau. 

Loudoun remained inactive during the year 1756. The 
following year the plan of campaign was changed. In- 
stead of marching against Crown Point an expedition was 
fitted out for a descent on Louisburg, but the undertaldng 
utterly failed, Loudoun returning without striking a blow.^ 
In the absence of Loudoun, Montcalm made his famous 
descent upon Fort William Henry, resulting in its cap- 
ture.2 The great danger to which the northern colonies 
were exposed by this disaster required energetic efforts 
on the part of the colonists to defend their frontiers. No 
less than twenty thousand troops were raised, of which 
Connecticut furnished five thousand.^ 

Meanwhile a change in the ministry of England had 
placed Pitt in power, and with this change a more ener- 
getic policy in prosecuting the war was inaugurated. 
Loudoun was displaced by Abercrombie, who proved to 
be no more competent than his predecessor. One disas- 
trous, almost humorous, campaign demonstrated the inca- 
pacity of this officer, ^ and he was displaced by Sir Jeffrey 
Amherst, who had but recently effected the capture of 
Louisburg.^ 

' This Connecticut contingent in this abortive expedition was 1,400 men. 
Col. Rec, X, 598. 

== Palfrey, V, 152. 

^Col. Rec, XI, 92. See letter from Pitt Conn. Hist. Soc. Colls., I, 329; 
Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of N. Y., VII, 329. 

* Palfrey, V, 160. 

5 Ibid., V, 163. 



116 CONNECTICUT AS A CORPORATE COLONY. 

The campaign of 1759 involved three movements, one 
under Gen. Prideaux against Fort Niagara, a second 
under Amherst against Ticonderoga and Crown Point, 
and a third under Wolfe, directly against Quebec. A 
Connecticut contingent of five thousand men was with 
the army of Amherst.^ With little difficulty Ticonderoga 
and Crown Point fell into the hands of the English. The 
force under Amherst was relieved of the necessity of pro- 
ceeding to Quebec, having received intelligence that that 
place was already in the hands of Wolfe. With these 
events the conquest of Canada was assured. In the spring 
of 1760 Amherst marched with a force of ten thousand 
regulars and provincials^ against Montreal. With slight 
resistance this last stronghold of France was taken and 
all the French possessions in Canada passed to the 
British crown. 

The conquest of Canada did not close the war. In 1761 
a requisition for a new levy of troops was made, which 
troops were used in repairing the forts, which had fallen 
into the hands of the English, and for garrison purposes.^ 
In 1762 another request for troops was received, and 
Connecticut with commendable generosity again raised 
2,300 men.'' One thousand of this force, with 1,300 from 
New York and New Jersey under the command of Major 
General Lyman, took part in the expedition against Ha- 
vana.'^ Few of the troops that engaged in this campaign 
ever returned to Connecticut.^ 

1 Col. Rec, XI, 222. 

2 Connecticut had raised five hundred men for this campaign. Col. Rec, 
XI, 349. 

^ Ibid., XI, 480. See letter from Pitt, Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist, of 
N. Y., VII, 452; R. I. Col. Rec, VII, 262. Connecticut raised 2,300 men. 

♦ Col. Rec, XI, 614. A bounty of five pounds was also offered to those 
who would join the regular army. Ibid., XI, 622. 

5 War had again broken out between England and Spain in 1762. 

6 Trumbull, II, 449. 



MILITAEY APFAIRS. 117 

Early in 1764 a request was received for troops to join 
the forces of Amherst which were operating against the 
Indians on the western frontier.^ At first the General 
Court did not see fit to comply with the request as the 
colony ''was not exposed by its situation" to danger. 
Finally, however, it was agreed to raise two hundred and 
sixty-five men, who, probably, never left the colony, as the 
struggle had been brought to a close. 

» See letter from Halifax, New Hampshire Prov. Papers, VII, 28. 



YITA. 

The author of this luonogTaph was graduated from Public 
School 55, New York City, in 1894 ; attended the College of the 
City of New York, 1894-1899, graduating with the degree of 
B.S. ; pursued post-graduate courses in the faculty of Political 
Science, Columbia University, receiving the degree of A.M. in 
1903, and Ph.D. in 1906 ; taught in the New York public schools 
1899-1902; appointed tutor in the department of history. Col- 
lege of the City of New York, 1902-1906 ; instructor, 1906-. 



119 



LB My '07 



UN somd 



CONNECTICUT 



AS A 



CORPORATE COLONY 



NELSON PRENTISS MEAD 



DISSERTATION 

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for 

THE Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty 

OF Political Science in Columbia University 



PRESS Of 

Thi New Era Printing Company, 

LANCAStER, Pa. 

1900 



M^^A- 



